Unnecessarily Sufficient

In my last post to this blog titled Optics vs Impact (OvI) I wrote about how approaches to development can differ depending upon whether one’s underlying motive is to actually make something happen, or merely to cultivate the perception that something is happening. To help illustrate that concept in a broader sense I drew upon a key story arc from Season One of HBO's The Wire.  

I also pointed out in the last post that Optics vs Impact is a tricky topic to examine. People often have a knee-jerk, defensive reaction to  it.  In fact, here’s one of the most common reactions that I get: 

"PERCEPTION IS REALITY ... SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ARE ALL ABOUT MARKETING THESE DAYS!” 

Of course the truth is that anyone who says that is absolutely right. Engineering good optics is a critically important aspect of management in any industry, and international development is no exception. Edward Bernays, who is generally recognized as the founder of modern public relations, actually developed a term for the process of shaping opinion, attitudes and perceptions; he called it the "engineering of consent.”  Anyone who foresakes the importance of optics does so at their own peril. You think optics doesn’t matter, or shouldn’t matter? Well, remember this blog post when the train of neglectfully-managed public opinion unmercifully mows you down.  Believe me, I’m one of the people who wishes that great work could just speak for itself. Trust me, it doesn’t!  

What really gets me though, is when people think this is where the whole OvI conversation ends, because that is where I disagree. And I think we need to reflect a bit more deeply on the whole OvI conundrum if we really want to get serious about development results. 

So let’s look at that knee jerk response to OvI more closely. 

"PERCEPTION IS REALITY ...   SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ARE ALL ABOUT MARKETING THESE DAYS!” 

The statement outlines what logic terminology calls an "implicational relationship." It implies that success with development projects requires careful, active management of perception.  As I’ve already said - and as I’m sure we’ve all observed first hand - it is very hard to argue otherwise!

But it's more complicated than this because logic theory defines a range of different types of implicational relationships. These various types involve the concepts of Necessity and Sufficiency. Maybe you're scratching your head now trying to remember some exercises you did back in college or graduate school, or preparing for the LSAT.   If it’s not familar, or if the cobwebs are too thick, I’ll quickly share an example that explains it. 

Time to summon your inner Spock for a few minutes and geek out on some logic theory!

Let’s tackle necessary first: 

Definition: A necessary condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that must be satisfied in order for S to obtain.

Example: A necessary condition for getting an A in a class is that a student hand in a term paper. This means that if a student does not hand in a term paper, then a student will not get an A, or, equivalently, if a student gets an A, then a student hands in a term paper.

And now sufficient:

Definition: A sufficient condition for some state of affairs S is a condition that, if satisfied, guarantees that S obtains. 

Example: A sufficient condition for getting an A in a class is getting an A on every piece of graded work in the course. This means that if a student gets an A on every piece of graded work in the course, then the student gets an A.  

It’s important to point out that from the example above, handing in a term paper is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for getting an A in the class. Similarly, getting an A on every piece of graded work in the course is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for getting an A in the class.  In fact there are four combinations or four unique varieties of implicational relationships. I think it’s easiest to see these in a 2x2 matrix:

OK, hope this is all clear. Let’s get back to the point of this post by taking another look at the knee jerk reaction to the OvI discussion:

"PERCEPTION IS REALITY ... SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ARE ALL ABOUT MARKETING THESE DAYS!” 

Which of the following relationships are implied by this statement?

(A) Engineering a positive perception is a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful development projects.  

(B) Engineering a positive perception is a sufficient but not necessary condition for successful development projects.  

(C) Engineering a positive perception is a necessary and sufficient condition for successful development projects.  

(D) Engineering a positive perception is nether a necessary nor sufficient condition for successful development projects. 

We’ve already established that positive perception is absolutely necessary, which means the answer is either (A) or (C). What we haven’t established yet is whether or not a positive perception is sufficient. 

If we let the knee jerk reaction stand, without pushing for further examination, then we are implicitly accepting that the answer is (C). In other words, if we’re satisfied with the knee jerk reaction to OvI, we’re saying that engineering a positive perception is a necessary and sufficient condition for successful development projects. 

That is why I’m not satisfied with the knee jerk reaction. It’s not that I disagree, it’s just that I don’t think positive perception is sufficient for successful development projects. Here’s the reaction that I wish I heard more often:

"PERCEPTION IS REALITY ... SO THAT’S ONE OF THE KEY THINGS WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND AND FOCUS ON IF WE WANT TO BE SUCCESSFUL!"

- DS