Why Your Theory of Change Looks Like Pasta (and How to Fix It)

We have all seen it: the Theory of Change diagram that looks less like a roadmap and more like a plate of spaghetti. Arrows crisscrossing in every direction, boxes inside boxes, loops that twist back on themselves until even the most determined reader gives up.

In the moment, people often nod politely as the diagram is presented. But the truth is that once the meeting ends, these diagrams are quietly filed away, never to be used again. This is what I call the spaghetti diagram problem, which is a Theory of Change so tangled that it becomes impossible to follow, let alone use as a living guide.

Why does this happen?

Interestingly, the problem usually arises from good intentions. Teams want to be thorough, so they try to capture every possible variable, stakeholder, and pathway. Others believe that complexity signals rigour, and so they equate dense diagrams with seriousness. Sometimes the issue comes from a lack of prioritisation: when teams cannot agree on what matters most, everything gets added. The result looks impressive on paper but fails in practice.

The real purpose of a Theory of Change

It is worth stepping back to remember what a Theory of Change is actually for. It is not a master record of every activity or assumption. Nor is it meant to impress funders with its complexity. A Theory of Change is, at its core, a shared picture of how change is expected to happen. It should make underlying assumptions visible and guide decisions throughout implementation. If people cannot understand it at a glance, it is not fulfilling its purpose.

How to avoid the spaghetti trap

The first step is to stick to the main storyline. If you had to explain the project to a colleague in three minutes, what would you say? That is the backbone of your Theory of Change. Additional details and secondary pathways can be kept in annexes or explanatory notes, but they should not obscure the central logic.

A second principle is to be disciplined with arrows. Not every possible relationship needs to be drawn. Too many arrows confuse rather than clarify. Focus only on the connections that are essential to explaining how change will occur.

Third, consider layering your diagram. A simple overview can present the big picture logic, while more detailed pathways, such as gender dynamics, policy shifts, or contextual factors, can be shown separately. This allows users to “zoom in” when needed without overwhelming them from the start.

Finally, test your diagram with people outside of the core team. If someone unfamiliar with the project cannot look at it and explain the logic in plain language, it is still too complex.

A lesson from practice

I once worked with a team that proudly presented a Theory of Change containing seventy-two boxes and countless arrows. It was, in its way, beautiful, an intricate web of ideas. But when I asked them to tell me the story in words, it boiled down to three simple sentences. We rebuilt the diagram around those sentences, and suddenly everyone, from field staff to funders, could grasp the logic. More importantly, they could use it.

In sum

A Theory of Change should function as a compass, not a plate of pasta. When it becomes too dense to understand, it cannot guide strategy, learning, or decisions. Simplifying the story, trimming the arrows, and testing for clarity are not signs of cutting corners, they are what make the tool valuable.

Because in the end, the true measure of a Theory of Change is not how complicated it looks, but how useful it is. Join tomorrow's webinar to learn more. LAST CHANCE to attend as registration closes soon,.