Public Diplomacy is Changing the Odds

There have been many attempts to pin down what Public Diplomacy is about, and as I’m currently finishing editing The Trials of Public Diplomacy, this has been at the forefront of my mind. Rather than seeking another definition to encapsulate (or exclude) certain actors, methodologies, or bureaucracies, I’ve been seeking to think about what PD is it at its core.

To me it is attempting to influence behaviour to change the odds of certain outcomes occurring.   

In thinking about this I’ve revisited Michael Lewis’ Moneyball, in it he writes about how the management of the Oakland A’s broke down the entirety of a match into an encounter of each hitter facing a pitcher which became;

a miniature game in itself, in which the odds shift constantly. The odds depend on who is pitching and who is hitting, of course, but they also depend on the minute events within the event. Every plate appearance was like a hand of blackjack; the tone of it changed with each card dealt.

Moneyball p. 147

 

This analogy was based on the analysis of expected outcomes for a hitter, depending on where they were in the count. Paul DePodesta, working for the Oakland A’s, highlighted the shifting odds in achieving a favourable outcome, not just as a result of a ball or strike on the first pitch but importantly on every pitch.

“The difference between 1-2 and 2-1 in terms of expected outcome is just enormous” says Paul. “It’s the largest variance of expected outcomes of any one pitch. On 2-1 most average major league hitters become all-stars, yet on 1-2 they become anemic nine-hole hitters.”

Moneyball p. 147

 

Public diplomacy organisations should think similarly when considering the networks with which they engage. The networks are not static; each network exists as an ongoing cultural and structural negotiation where every action influences (positively or negatively) the likelihood of certain outcomes occurring in the future. To be clear; the odds of any specific outcome occurring will change with each and every interaction between the members of the network.

This is good news! A positive result can increase the chances of further positive outcomes in future. However, it is equally a cautionary note; an organisation cannot on one day have a negative impact, either due to Foreign Policy or specific personal interaction, and hope to return to a blank canvass the next.

A hitter that swings wildly and ends up 0-2 can not just ask nicely for the count to be put back to 0-0. The hitter is in a deep hole and will have to work very hard to get out of it. Likewise those conducting PD who realise their country, organisation or policy are unpopular cannot just change tack and hope that returns them to 0-0; they will have to conduct programmes which re-engage with the communities before they can then move on to attempting to achieve current policy goals through PD. This re-engagement stage cannot be missed out, by Barack Obama or anyone else.   

While much emphasis is placed on measurement and concrete outcomes, the reality is that Public Diplomacy can offer no more than influence, to change the odds of events happening. Public Diplomacy does not control people’s thoughts; it works to influence in systems with many complex and unpredictable inputs, it works with vast audiences that even with the best message testing and focus groups may interpret a PD programme in a way other than it was intended.

To return to the analogy, Public Diplomacy is about influencing a community in the attempt to make a desired behaviour more likely to occur. It is about finding ways of making it more likely the behaviour will be 2-1 and an all star idea, rather than an anemic 1-2.