Introduction
How do we, as a society, engage in impactful work in a world that is growing more divisive by the day? We find ourselves navigating a complex landscape where our words, actions, and beliefs are constantly scrutinised and often twisted. Not only do we face this challenge from external forces, but we also experience it internally, shaped by our lived experiences. This growing polarisation leaves little room for constructive engagement, and we often find ourselves second-guessing every statement, wondering, “Did I say something wrong?” We strive to be politically correct—something I believe is fundamentally just—but at times, it has gone too far. This societal pressure creates discomfort, making genuine, productive engagement difficult.
The Challenge of Defining Impact
In such an environment, the conversation is often dominated by a select few, whose voices fill the room simply because they have the platform to speak. Whether their entitlement is self-proclaimed or given by an entity, these voices shape the discussions, pushing their own agendas. And often, we align ourselves with those agendas if they seem to fit our beliefs. Our alignment with these narratives—whether they belong to small organisations, major corporations, or even friends—gives these claims legitimacy, simply because we trust in them.
But do we ever pause to put our beliefs aside and question the legitimacy of these claims? The truth is, we seldom do. When we want to believe something, we deem it as true, whether it’s a political ideology or a friend’s well-intentioned statement. This tendency is no different when we encounter claims about ‘impact.’
Trust and Legitimacy: A Double-Edged Sword
The term ‘impact’ is everywhere—non-profits, corporations, and major funders (like USAID or FCDO) consistently claim their work has impact, often using it as a badge of success in their annual reports. At a dinner table, you might even hear a friend describe their work as having “significant impact,” whether they’re working in renewable energy or poverty alleviation. The question is, do we challenge these assertions? In most cases, we don’t. We trust the claim because we trust the person, the institution, or the system that supports it.
Take, for example, how we treat homelessness. Many of us are reluctant to give money directly to someone on the street, thinking, “I don’t know how they’ll spend it.” Yet we’re more inclined to donate to a prominent organisation addressing homelessness because it seems like the ‘better,’ more trustworthy route. But how many of us know how that organisation spends the money? Perhaps they have significant overheads, including a CEO salary exceeding $500,000 a year, or they rent an expensive office space. When we donate, we often trust that our money is having an impact, but we rarely investigate how it’s being spent or the actual outcomes on the ground.
Questioning Impact Claims
Our trust in people and entities can blind us to the need for critical thinking. For example, if someone claims to be the “funniest person in the world,” we might not believe them immediately. But if they start cracking jokes and make us laugh, we begin to think, “Maybe they are funny.” The same principle applies to impact. If we hear the word used often enough, we start to believe it. But is the impact real, or just well-packaged?
We must begin questioning the legitimacy of impact claims, whether they come from corporations, governments, or even close friends. Claims of positive change, success, or influence should never be accepted at face value. A corporation might tout a new policy’s positive economic effects, while an environmental group could highlight its devastating ecological consequences. These contradictions point to the need for a critical mindset—one that asks, “Who is making this claim, and what is their underlying motive?”
Conclusion
In an increasingly polarised world, navigating the concept of impact requires us to engage with a critical lens. We should challenge the legitimacy of claims, demand supporting evidence, and consider the broader context, scale, and stakeholders involved. By doing so, we can move beyond surface-level assertions and ensure that the work we support or engage in truly leads to meaningful, sustainable change.
