Lea is a skilled evaluator with a strong background in social science and international development. She holds a BA in Social Science from the University College Utrecht and an MSc in International Development Studies (Sociology of Development and Change), from Wageningen University and Research. With a global perspective and interest in participatory approaches, Lea brings several years of experience of collaborating on complex evaluations across diverse sectors, including agriculture and livelihoods. She has contributed to several assignments for CGIAR IAES, including co-authoring the 2025 technical note on using AI in Evaluation as well as the 2024 Science Group Evaluations. As a leader in EvalYouth Europe and the EvalYouth Global Management Group, she is dedicated to empowering young professionals in the field. Lea's unique combination of skills and experience enables her to navigate international projects and multi-stakeholder settings with ease, driving meaningful change through impactful evaluations.
United Kingdom
Lea Corsetti
MERL Consultant
Posted on 20/08/2025
As a YEE with experience spanning program implementation and external evaluation, I've observed how the current system can inadvertently create a "game" dynamic between stakeholders and donors, where feedback becomes a procedural requirement rather than a catalyst for meaningful change.
Common Barriers to Feedback Use (Q1) Beyond implementer resistance, I don't think we have fully solved the challenge of context-insensitive recommendations. External evaluators can have limited understanding of on-ground dynamics that program staff navigate daily. Additionally, organizational capacity varies significantly as some are structurally equipped to integrate change while others struggle with even small modifications due to complex dynamics which can be both internal and external.
Culture and Leadership Influence (Q2) I increasingly view evaluators as facilitators for change rather than purely technical professionals. Organizations can still default to "we've always done it this way" thinking. A family friend who runs a business recently shared that she hesitates to hire graduates because "when they join they immediately want to change everything without realizing that even a small change requires months and endless meetings with staff." I don't think this experience is exclusive. I have spoken to organizations that feel similarly about evaluation recommendations—they'll complete the exercise as a donor requirement, but changing aspects of projects or programs feels overwhelming, especially if they are still ongoing. I also wonder if it is enough for leadership to create space to accompany change and thoughtfully consider what and how recommendations are implemented or if there is a more creative approach beyond leadership which might be more successful in implementing change at all levels.
Practical Steps for Embedding Feedback (Q3) My most effective program experience was with a fantastic manager and head of country operations who integrated learning into our weekly cycles. We didn't just check project progression—there were constant feedback loops for improvement and creative problem-solving around delicate stakeholder management for a long-term project. Beyond taking recommendations seriously, I wonder if we as evaluation professionals also need better presentation formats. One evaluation office I have worked for provides recommendations in table formats so organisational decision-makers can cross-check implementation. This is not so much the case when I have worked as an independent evaluator where we have maybe done a sense making workshop, integrated feedback but once the report is handed in it is out of our hands. I wonder if as evaluators we need to figure out effective communication beyond reports. A Korean policy evaluator I met at a conference a few years ago found that presenting maximum 1-page summaries to decision-makers was most effective in her experience—anything longer wasn't useful.
Effective Tools and Systems (Q4) Building low-barrier feedback systems that attend to entire program cycles and all stakeholders proves most effective. Context-appropriate feedback generation is already a significant step, as is implementing adaptive management with monitoring officers equipped with evaluation knowledge (real time learning approach).
Maintaining Stakeholder Trust (Q5) True co-creation is difficult but achievable. As many colleagues can probably attest, we have probably all observed an intervention claiming to be participatory without real meaningful stakeholder involvement. I remember one research project where I realized very quickly that I was told what the beneficiaries thought I wanted to hear due to my positionality as an outsider and stakeholder fears about funding loss if things were deemed to not be working. Building trust requires overcoming these dynamics while fostering cultures of responsiveness to stakeholder needs across different project scales, as the needs of a local community intervention will differ from a large multi country program.