How much do we actually listen to the people we claim to serve in the development sector?
A Story from the Field
Back in 2020, during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, I was working on a program that aimed to build infrastructure—such as roads, youth centers, and libraries—in different districts. The core idea was simple: communities themselves should decide what was most needed.
But movement restrictions meant we couldn’t organize in-person consultations. Donors were pushing us to move quickly, so we set up an online voting system. For those without internet access, volunteers—following COVID-19 safety rules—collected votes door-to-door.
When the results were published, a group of community members protested outside our office. Their concern? The selected facility wasn’t as urgent as building a proper road.
I invited their representatives inside, listened carefully, and realized they were right. Their need was far more immediate. We changed the plan accordingly.
This experience reminded me of a fundamental truth: whether in profit or non-profit work, if we don’t align with the real needs of the people, our projects are bound to fail.
When Top-Down Design Fails
Too often, projects are designed from behind office desks, guided more by past experiences—or donor preferences—than by present realities.
For example:
- A skills training for women is arranged, but attendance is poor. Why? The training was scheduled at times when most women were busy with household responsibilities, or the skills offered (like sewing) weren’t as useful as other opportunities (like agriculture).
- A donor proposed adding an online library with e-learning modules for youth. The idea worked well in other countries, but in this specific community, most young people had only basic phones, weak internet connections, and little money for data. The project, though well-funded, missed the mark.
Lesson: context matters. If a project doesn’t serve people’s needs, it doesn’t matter how impressive it looks on paper—it won’t have impact.
The Importance of Clarity
Another recurring issue is the gap between donor expectations and local partner realities. For example, in one partnership I supported, there was always tension around budget planning. Donors expected strict implementation, while the local partner’s needs and expectations were far higher than the available budget.
When I joined, I decided to be fully transparent: I explained clearly what could and could not be done, why limitations existed, and how the funds would be used. To my surprise, this clarity resolved much of the tension. What had been missing all along was simple, honest communication.
Building Trust with Communities
When engaging with communities, there’s a temptation to promise more than we can deliver, just to maintain good relationships. But unmet promises damage trust far more than honesty ever could.
A simple principle to remember:
- Be upfront about what you can deliver.
- Be equally upfront about what you cannot.
No single project can solve every problem, and communities deserve honesty from the start.
Final Thought
Successful projects are not built on assumptions—they are built on listening. When we genuinely hear people’s priorities, design solutions around their realities, and communicate transparently about limitations, projects stand a far greater chance of lasting impact.
And if you’ve faced similar challenges in your own work, share your story. These experiences aren’t just personal lessons—they’re valuable insights for the entire sector.