The tension between MEL and Program Officers

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) teams often see themselves as natural allies to Program Officers (POs). Both groups are working toward the same organizational mission: making smart decisions, funding effective projects, and demonstrating results. Yet anyone who has spent time inside a foundation, NGO, or donor agency knows there’s a quiet, persistent tension between these two roles.

In my experience, it rarely surfaces openly. Program Officers will dutifully nod in support of a new MEL initiative while privately resisting or dismissing it as bureaucratic overhead. MEL staff, baffled by this resistance, double down on the importance of data, evidence, and systems. The result is often a stalemate where Program Officers see MEL as a burden and MEL teams see Program Officers as barriers.

Understanding why this tension exists (and how to work productively across it) requires looking at the different “customers” each side serves.

two different north stars

At the top of any organization sits what we might call the oversight function. This is the ultimate decision-making authority that demands accountability–Congress for USAID, a board of trustees in other contexts. MEL teams naturally orient toward this oversight function. Their job is to collect, analyze, and report evidence that shows the organization is delivering on its promises.

Program Officers orient toward their portfolios and grantees instead. For them, the most valuable information doesn’t come from a dashboard or an indicator database. It comes from face-to-face conversations with grantees, from site visits, and from their wealth of real experience. This is the feedback loop that allows them to practice adaptive management alongside grantees.

Grantees have their own fears and frustrations–grumbling which often only the Program Officers hear. There’s nothing more frustrating to the data team at an organization than responding to a data call when they know the data aren’t going to actually be used for anything meaningful. Onerous reporting requirements have real costs that divert funding from their on-the-ground work.

Consider so called “standard” indicators. From the MEL team’s perspective, a suite of standard indicators tracked for every relevant project is essential for aggregating outcomes, evaluating effectiveness and simplifying data systems. From the POs perspective, standard indicators lack the nuance needed to adaptively manage the actual project. From the grantee’s perspective, this isn’t the only set of “standard” indicators they must report on to each of their various funding organizations. These and other similar MEL practices feel like an extra reporting layer that siphons energy away from the “real” work of guiding and supporting grantees.

when MEL feels adversarial

Most Program Officers aren’t against evidence. But they bristle when MEL activities threaten their autonomy or power. The most cynical PO will guard information closely, believing their influence comes from being the one who “knows what’s going on.” These POs maintain “fiefdoms” in their organization by hoarding data. However, most POs are simply passionate and focused on the success of their portfolios. Behind closed doors they describe MEL costs as a “tax” on project implementation. They are quick to push back on any new MEL initiative.

From the MEL side, this can feel irrational, even obstructionist. After all, why would anyone resist efforts to improve learning? But when MEL initiatives feel extractive (when data are requested without any clear benefit returned to grantees or Program Officers), it’s easy to see why resistance hardens.

In these moments, MEL teams can become the “bad cop,” enforcing compliance by invoking the oversight function: “Congress requires these indicators,” or “The board expects this dashboard.” While technically correct, this reliance on top-down authority reinforces the perception that MEL is about control, not support.

shifting the dynamic

So what can MEL teams do? The answer isn’t to stop serving the oversight function. They can’t. But they can recalibrate how they engage Program Officers.

Demonstrate immediate value. Any new MEL initiative should answer the PO’s implicit question: “How will this make my job easier, not harder?” If the answer isn’t clear, the initiative will fail.

Share back, not just extract. Every data request should be paired with a feedback loop: summary findings, visualizations, or insights that grantees and POs (and grantees) can use. When MEL teams become providers of useful intelligence, trust builds.

Join the real conversations. MEL staff should be present in the adaptive management spaces POs already value: quarterly meetings, grantee convenings, site visits. Numbers matter, but they should complement, not replace, human judgment.

Respect relational expertise. Program Officers often know things that MEL systems cannot capture: grantee dynamics, contextual risks, political realities. Acknowledging this expertise helps MEL avoid being seen as an ivory tower.

a path forward

The tension between MEL teams and Program Officers isn’t a failure. It’s a structural feature of organizations that must balance accountability to oversight bodies with the messy, relational work of managing programs.

MEL teams succeed when they accept this reality and work to bridge the gap, not enforce compliance from above. That means shifting from being seen as the “reporting police” to becoming genuine partners in decision-making.

Program Officers will never fully embrace MEL if it only serves oversight. They will, however, value MEL when it enriches their own practice. When it helps them make better decisions, support their grantees, and tell more compelling stories of impact.

That’s the challenge, and the opportunity, for MEL teams today.