|
Impact friends, Happy Holidays! I don't know about you, but this year has flown by far too fast for me. In our last episode of the year, I’m reflecting on three moments when my body reacted before my brain. Signals that something wasn't right. At the time, I didn't fully understand them. But, the feelings continued shaping my work on designing and measuring for community impact. The first feeling was discomfort. During my work on SB 375 program, I was on a call walking through modeling results with the director of one of our regional partners in California. When I told him that their modeling analysis shows that they are not meeting their climate targets, the director calmly said: "Nader, you know that we can move the knob and show you whatever number you want. But you know these plans aren't going to be implemented. We don't have the authority. Neither does the state." The comment wasn't confrontational. Still, I felt a discomfort I couldn't shake. We were debating precision around outcomes we didn't actually have the power to deliver. That feeling resurfaced this year: technical rigor without implementation authority is just performance. So, now, when I design programs, I ask upfront about who actually has the power to act? The second feeling was adrenaline (followed by exhaustion). Leading the design of California's first statewide homelessness data system, the California Governor wanted it in six months. Something that usually takes years. We had to respond to over 700 technical requirements, while responding to layers and layers of oversight. We delivered. And, the system worked. But by the end, my team and I were exhausted. We moved fast. We just didn't leave room for trust, or for people to breathe, and understand the system and use it effectively. That feeling stuck with me: speed without trust has a cost, even when the outcome looks successful. Now I build in time for relationships, even when timelines feel impossible. The third feeling was relief. It came while working on California Jobs First. At first, we tried to design a program that could do everything: jobs, climate, equity, resilience, innovation. It was confusing and unclear. The relief came when we finally narrowed the focus. When we chose jobs as the center. When we accepted that clarity would disappoint some people. And that was okay. For the first time in over 1.5 year, things felt clearer. That feeling guides me now: saying no is how you say yes to what matters. I look for focus earlier, before confusion becomes the norm. These three feelings reshaped my approach to program design: Discomfort taught me to ask about power, not just plans Exhaustion taught me that we can’t skip trust building Relief taught me that clarity requires choices
I'm learning to listen to those signals earlier, before systems burn people out.
|
