In this article by Martin Ravallion, he looks at what it would mean to add a new goal to the list Millenium Development Goals (MDGs). If you'll gloss over his assumption that the MDGs are strong and sound with me, he brings up two interesting ideas that can help us qualify our goals;
1) A strong goal isn't a means, it is an end that encompasses a means. The example in the article (by the way have you taken the five minutes to read it yet? just click the title of this post to get to it) is the question of setting up a goal to specifically address inequality. He reasons that to do so would be setting up the goal is a means, and it would disregard that inequality is a cross-cutting challenge that is in fact embedded in other goals, like MDG one - eliminate extreme poverty and hunger.Â
2) Ravallion notes that including something about inequality specifically as an MDG would not be unique and distinct as it is so closely incorporated in many other goals. It is already necessary and a part of other goals, that to name it as one would be redundant. Goals in this case need to be clear and specific.
Addressing inequality is one, of many, ways to ultimately eliminate extreme poverty. We could also take in to consideration social issues and larger systems of oppression, but you'll note that they are not named as MDGs. Naming addressing inequality would be one step toward eradicating poverty, thus making it a means. Means can act as mile markers, as strategy points, as paths to change whereas a true goal address what is at the root of the change.Â
The EWB chapter example that came to mind is chapters who don't have Invested Partnerships teams/champs. There are a number of you who share the responsibility of fundraising across teams within the chapter. We've seen examples of this being successful, and then not so much so.
My guess is that with teams set up specifically for Invested Partnerships, the intention is clear - they are going to establish goals that align with the dual bottom line, and that may include hosting events that cross cut other teams' goals (for example hosting a GE event for NEM). In this case the team is the poverty MDG, and the event is Ravallion's inequality example.Â
What do you think? Have you set a "means" goal rather than an "ends" one with your team? Is my guess about this right? Do Ravallion's two main points resonate with your goal setting experiences?
