Tag: planning

Dr. Seuss on the growth of your non-profit organization

organizational development, Planning

growth“I laughed at the Lorax, “You poor stupid guy!
You never can tell what some people will buy!”
Business is business!
And business must grow
regardless of crummies in tummies, you know.
— Written my Dr. Seuss in The Lorax
 

 
You hear it all the time from for-profit business people, “If you’re not growing, then you’re dying.” If you want proof that this is the mantra of the business community, turn on the news or open your newspaper. Oh heck, just Google it and you’ll find more than you can read.
However, isn’t this also the mantra of the non-profit community? In my almost 20 years of experience, it certainly seems to be. The following are just a few things I constantly hear my non-profit clients saying:

  • “Our facility is too small (or too old), and we need to raise money to build a new one to serve more people.”
  • “The state just released a new grant RFP, and we should look at expanding programming if we hope to qualify.“
  • “We don’t have enough board volunteers and need to add more.“
  • “Operating expenses keep rising and we need to add another fundraising campaign or event.“

changesSo, I guess Dr. Seuss is right again . . . “Business is business!” It must just be a function of human nature, right? Because I see corporate America constantly expanding. I see the non-profit sector doing the same thing. And I may just get sick if I hear one more person rant about the expanding size of government on my television (I probably just need to learn how to use my remote and change the channel.)
There is lots and lots of wisdom in Dr. Seuss’ words and there are lots of directions I could go with my blog post this morning, but it is his last sentence that sticks with me.
I don’t know about you, but I believe “crummies in tummies” is an obvious reference to:

  • stress
  • anxiety
  • uncertainty

I think he is saying the idea of growth is a force at work at all times in our organizations, and it is likely a stressor.  While I believe this to be true, I’m choosing to look at this as a clarion call rather than a truism. I think the good doctor is making the case for . . .

PLANNING

In my experience, non-profit organizations who plan for growth don’t have many “crummies in tummies.” And I’m not just talking about developing one plan . . . those organizations have many plans including:

  • Strategic plan
  • Long term plan
  • Business plan
  • Resource development plan
  • Board Development plan
  • Compensation & Benefits Plan
  • Program plan
  • Marketing plan
  • Crisis communications plan
  • Succession plan

planningI know that many people look at this list and immediately reject it, but if Dr. Seuss is right and “Business is business! And business must grow” then change is inevitable inside of our organizations. And if change is inevitable, then why put on a blindfold and take the proverbal steering wheel of your organization?
If this post intrigued you but you’re not sure how or where to start, you might want to check out a few of these resources I recently found online:

Of course, if you are looking for an external consultant and partner to help your agency with facilitating you plan, I know of someone who might be willing to help.  😉
I am feeling whimsical this morning. So, please scroll down and use the comment box below to share what this Dr. Seuss quote inspired you to think about this morning. Your thoughts and experiences are appreciated and will likely help inspire other non-profit professionals and volunteers reading this blog.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Tools for engaging your non-profit board during planning activities

Planning

Planning is an engagement activity, especially when it is done right. This is probably why I’ve found myself signing many contracts with non-profit organizations in the last few years to help them develop long term plans, strategic plans, tactical plans, business plans, board development & governance plans, resource development plans, marketing plans, program plans, etc etc etc.
OMG . . . I think I was channeling Bubba from the movie Forrest Gump there for a moment:

As you saw from that memorable movie clip, this stuff can get a little mesmerizing and rote. When it does, then planning isn’t very engaging at all and begins to feel like Dunkin Donuts’ Fred the Baker. Remember him?

Planning (whatever you are planning) can be frustrating for many different reasons, but two of my all time favorite things that result in tearing out one’s hair are:

  1. when participants don’t understand the issues, strategies or tactics being discussed during the planning process (or they have an incorrect and fuzzy picture of what is really going on at their agency)
  2. when board members don’t want to put their names on any of the action items

I recently found a tool that you might find useful, and I employed a simple exercise that also appeared to work fairly well with helping people better understand and engage in your planning process. I thought it would be fun to share both of these tools with you today.
post it notesExercise: What seat(s) on the bus do you want to sit?
Have you ever found yourself in a situation where your resource development committee is writing your organization’s annual resource development plan in a vacuum?
You know what I mean . . .
The committee meets, strokes their chin, pontificates on goals-strategies-tactics, puts it all on paper, brings it to the board for approval, everyone votes ‘YES’ and the illusion of  consensus descends upon the boardroom. Action plans were sketchy and very few people’s names were listed next to any tactics. In the end, you have a plan and the only person doing anything associated with the plan is YOU.
One simple exercise that your resource development committee could use to engage the board simply involves:

  • Larger poster paper
  • Post-It Notes
  • Pens
  • Approx 5 minutes of time on the board meeting agenda

Let’s say your resource development committee has set its goals and now grapples with what strategies it should include in the plan to achieve the goals. It certainly doesn’t make sense to include strategies with which no one plans on volunteering to help. This exercise — albeit simple — helps get a handle on the question: “What seat on the bus do you want to sit in?” Here is how it works:

  1. Label each poster paper with a prospective resource development strategy (e.g. prospect cultivation, specific special events, annual campaign, major gifts, planned giving, special projects, donor stewardship, etc)
  2. Give every board members a stack of standard size Post-It Notes and a pen
  3. Ask participants to put their name on Post-It Notes and place those notes on the larger posters that represent activities where they would like to volunteer their time
  4. Step back and facilitate a short discussion about what they see (e.g. Are there resource development strategies that don’t have any names? If so, what should be done about that? Are there posters with lots of names? What options does that give the committee? etc etc etc)

This exercise gives your resource development committee an opportunity to:

  • Refine and fine tune the strategies in its draft plan (e.g if no one put their name on the annual campaign strategy, you can eliminate it from your plan OR revise your board recruitment plans to find people with that interest OR change the annual campaign model to better fit the skills and interests sitting around your table, etc)
  • Develop leadership prospect lists for various fundraising activities
  • Target specific board volunteers to engage in discussion about action plans and tactics

Kinda simple, but pretty effective in getting people in the seats that they want to sit in on the fundraising bus.

matrix mapTool: The Matrix Map
When planning, I find that sometimes people get all turned on issues pertaining to:

Profitable activities

vs.

Impact and mission driven activities

Let’s face it. Sometimes our organizations do things that lose money because our mission calls us to do it or the community impact demands we do it. Likewise, we sometimes do things that have nothing to do with our mission because it brings in money and helps fund other mission-focused activities.
These calculations aren’t intuitive to business-minded people who sit on your board.
One tool I found while reading LinkedIn discussion groups is something called a Matrix Map, and it might be helpful to your board members during the planning process.
Steve Zimmerman recently wrote a great article at the Nonprofit Quarterly titled “The Matrix Map: A Powerful Tool for Mission-Focused Nonprofits“. This link is definitely worth the click if your board members struggle with questions like “why are we doing that?” during a planning activity.
What tools have you used to engage your board or help clarify issues in your boardroom during planning and strategic related discussions. Please scroll down and share your experiences in thoughts in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Membership organizations know a lot about building loyalty

Uncategorized

In case you haven’t heard, DonorDreams blog is hosting for the second year in a row the Nonprofit Blog Carnival in the month of May. This year’s theme revolves around building loyalty among various non-profit stakeholder groups such as donors, employees, volunteers, etc. If you are a blogger and looking for the “Call for Submissions,” then click here. The carnival will be posted right here at DonorDreams blog on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. Stay tuned!

In the interest of building momentum, we’ve dedicated the entire month of blog posts to this topic. We’re specifically focusing on what a variety of non-profit organizations are doing (or are looking at doing) to build loyalty.

Serving people’s interests inspires loyalty
Elgin Area Chamber of Commerce

elgin chamberNot all non-profit organizations are the same. Social service agency are different from arts organizations, and colleges/universities have different wrinkles than churches. However, the differences in many cases are slight and everyone can always learn from each other if they just look hard enough for the teachable moment. So, it didn’t come as a surprise to me that I learned a lot about how to build loyalty from Carol Gieske, President of the Elgin Area Chamber of Commerce, a few weeks ago.

Unlike other non-profit organizations, membership-driven organizations need to focus on building loyalty because without members to serve there is no need to keep the doors open.

In the time that Carol and I sat down to chat, she shared two great strategies that any non-profit organization can use to help build loyalty.

Planning

Everyone does it because as the old expression goes:

“If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.”

planningEvery good planning process begins with some form of evaluation. It could look like a SWOT analysis. It could be significantly more intensive and involve going through an accreditation process. Regardless of what evaluation process you use, good planning starts with evaluation because it is difficult to figure out where you want to go if you don’t know where you are currently.

After establishing what “Point A” looks like, the planning process usually involves engaging in discussions focused on:

  • mission
  • shared vision
  • shared values
  • goals
  • strategies
  • tactics / action steps

While talking about strategic planning with Carol, she made the point that involving her chamber members in the planning process is critical to building loyalty. Why? Because when members participate in planning, they have buy-in to where the chamber is going. And when members buy-in and the ideas on the page are theirs, then they are more likely to roll up their sleeves and stay engaged.
Affinity groups
elgin leadership academyAnother loyalty strategy upon which Carol and the chamber of commerce focus is affinity groups. While this term takes on many different meanings, in chamber circles it simply involves bring like-minded people together to talk about their similar interests. The following are a few examples of affinity groups:

  • entrepreneurs who are in the process of opening new businesses in town
  • non-profit organizations
  • manufacturers
  • restaurant owners

You might be wondering how is this a loyalty strategy?
On the surface, this is simply a perk of membership for people who join chambers. So, giving customers what they want (and doing so with quality) naturally builds loyalty.
However, it goes a little deeper than just giving people what they demand in the marketplace.
When you place your agency at the center of a relationship building exercise and do a good job facilitating it, affinity group participants do more than just build relationships with each other. They also end up building a last relationship with you.
Members — in fact any stakeholder group — become more loyal to your agency as the strength and depth of your relationship increases. This is one of the reasons we hold staff meetings, develop donor recognition societies, host client focus groups, etc.

 =================================

If you want to learn more about what other non-profit organizations are doing to build loyalty among various stakeholder groups (e.g. donors, employees, volunteers, etc), then tune in here to DonorDreams blog every Tuesday and Thursday throughout the month of May. We will also publish the Nonprofit Blog Carnival on May 28, 2014 with a number of links to other non-profit bloggers who are talking about loyalty related themes.

Here’s to your health!

Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

 

Planning for the worst case — strategic plan or crisis management plan?

Planning

The School of Worst Case Scenarios

Guest Blog Post
By Dani Robbins reprinted with permission from Nonprofit Evolution blog
planning2I always joke that I went to the School of Worst Case Scenarios, because when presented with any decision, I try to figure out the worst thing that could happen. It amuses my clients, yet it’s a helpful exercise. Once you know the worst case, you can roll of the dice, create a plan to avoid it or decide it’s not worth it.
Information is just information. It’s what you do with information that makes the difference.
There are a few plans and policies that will help you avoid or at least address a worst case scenario.
Strategic Plan
A Strategic Plan will keep you on the path that the leaders of your organization have elected to follow. There is less potential for failure on an agreed upon path.
If you don’t currently have one and your agency is not in the midst of a crisis, almost any time is a good time to do a Strategic Plan. There is one caveat: I’m not a huge fan of strategic planning with brand new (less than 6 months) Executive Directors. Give your new Exec 6 months before beginning a planning process.
All agencies should have a plan to align their staff and board as to where they’re going and how they’ll know when they get there.
Crisis Management Plan & Crisis Communication Plan
The only time I flat out recommend against starting a plan is in a crisis. Even if you went to the same school (of worst case scenarios) as me, crises still happen. The middle of a crisis is not the time to conduct a strategic plan. In fact, a crisis is the time to pull out your crisis management plan, and also your crisis communication plan.
Having these in a crisis will greatly mitigate the worst case scenario coming to pass and will increase the capacity of your staff to rise to the occasion. I recommend annual trainings on crisis plans.
A Crisis Management Plan will inform your team as to what to do in a wide variety of situations. Bomb threat- check.  Intruder in the building- check.  Shots fired in the neighborhood – check! Missing child- check.  Other things that are equally bad- check.
Knowing what to do is greatly preferable to guessing when the world is falling down around you. A good plan and well trained staff can be your salvation.
If you are starting from scratch, make a list of all the bad things that could reasonably happen and then a plan for what your team should do in each case. Draft a few press releases for the files. Train your staff on responding to the media and if you don’t have one, create a crisis communication plan for your board to appoint a spokesperson. Select a crisis response team and keep all of their names and contact information at the end of the plan.
I used to update that list and send out the entire plan every time I went on vacation. I considered it insurance.
A Crisis Communication Plan appoints a spokesperson and an alternate or two in case the initial person and the first alternate are implicated in the crisis. (Like in the case of the Exec and the Chair having an affair while married to other people; honestly, I couldn’t make this stuff up.) I usually recommend it be the Executive Director, Board Chair and Chair of the Marketing Committee.
Crisis avoidance is easier than damage control. The School of Worst Case Scenarios isn’t a party school but it can save your agency’s reputation and greatly enhance your career longevity.
What’s been your experience with crisis? Do you have great stories to share? As always, I welcome your insight, feedback and experience.  Please share your ideas or suggestions for blog topics and consider hitting the follow button to enter your email. A rising tide raises all boats.
dani sig

Non-profit success depends on failure!?!

organizational development, Planning

A Bias for Failing?

By John Greco
Originally published on August 19, 2013
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog
targetReady, fire, aim.
Measure twice, cut once.

Uh oh.  Wildly conflicting approaches.
What to do?
Measure twice cut once urges us to plan our work before we act.  Plan, and then work the plan.  Check our measurements before we cut.  Don’t vary from the tried-and-true process.  Make sure all i’s are dotted and all t’s crossed.
The implied consequence if we don’t? — wasted time, material, and effort when we have to cut again … and if we don’t have time to cut again?  Poor quality.
This makes very good sense, and I’ll bet resonates with you.
So what then do we make of ready-fire-aim?  What a stark contrast! Take action! then aim?
There’s a couple of ways I make sense of that instruction.
First, I imagine “aim” here is used more to suggest learning.  Take action, and then learn from the result that the action produced.  Self-correct.  Get ready again, and fire again.  And learn again.  Adjust.  Fire again.
Clearly, this approach actually builds in rework.  How is that efficient?
In a very real sense, it’s not.
But, in some cases (and more than we think I would propose) it is moreeffective.
How can that be?
Seems to me that if the task at hand is to converge on a distinct future outcome that is known in advance, say, like building a cabinet, then the carpenter’s measure twice cut once is the right approach.  If we know what we want; we know what we need to do, and we know what we have to work with, we can position our processes and resources, and cut take action with confidence.
The measure twice cut once approach is slow, deliberate, methodical.  Temporary inaction to produce eventual precision action.  It places primary importance on the avoidance of error.  And, therefore, on quality, and efficiency.
All’s good.
But what if things are changing all the time — objectives, policies and processes, technologies, people — and the “measuring twice” approach morphs into constant remeasuring?  Error avoidance can become paralysis … we so fear missing the shot that we don’t ever take the shot …
Time for ready-fire-aim.  And time for my second way of sense-making from those three out-of-order words.
Perhaps ready-fire-aim is not meant to be taken literally.  Perhaps it is only to invoke a certain mindset.
A bias for action.
Take action, learn, adjust; take action, learn, adjust; take action and learn, and adjust, again …
It is an acceptance of the fact that we’re not going to get it right no matter how cautious, deliberate, and planful we are…
There can be no denying that there’s a whole lot of change happening in our lives these days, personally, professionally, in our communities, in our relationships …
Measure twice cut once might need to increasingly give way to ready-fire-aim.  Because the complexity of all that change can become debilitating; immobilizing; stopping us in our tracks.
And I’m thinking that acting is what opens up the possibility of learning; because acting opens up the possibility of failing.
(Now I understand that inaction might be a great strategy given a certain set of conditions, but I’m thinking it is more the exception than the rule…)
Ready-fire-aim urges us to cut through the complexity of change.
Ready-fire-aim suggests we should have a bias for action.
Acting creates opportunities for learning.
From failure; because, clearly, acting in dynamic, changing environments is risky; we risk failing …
Our success will depend on our ability to learn from failing …
We can’t be afraid of that!
We must have a bias for action.
And trust and confidence that we will learn when we fail.
So, in an odd, yet fundamental way … a bias for failing?
john greco sig

How should your agency approach strategic goal setting?

organizational development, Planning

Grasping

By John Greco
Originally published on August 27, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog

vision“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?”

— Robert Browning

I ran across this quote many, many years ago.  It was a curious quote to me back then; I wasn’t sure what to make of it.  I couldn’t quite grasp the meaning.

But, over the years, I’ve made sense of it.  I’ve got it now.  In fact, since I’ve gotten it, I’ve flipped it into something more meaningful, for me, in my work.

I was recently sitting in on an executive session kicking off the strategic planning cycle.  I used the quote as I was making a point in the meeting.  I am not at all sure I should have used it, because when I used it I used my flipped meaning and not the standard, widespread meaning.

(I also doubt that I should have used it because, well, strategic planning meetings aren’t exactly forums for poetry readings… but, alas, I’m always seeking to be impactful when making my points…)

Back to the quote, and the strategic planning meeting.

By most accounts, Robert Browning was talking about the notion of aspirations.  Reach for the stars!  He was advocating for setting challenging goals.

He goes on to note — with an astonishing economy of words — that we should not expect to achieve those lofty goals; but never fear, there’s always the afterlife…

So conversationally it might be no, go for it, just don’t expect to get everything you go for!  Heaven is where we get everything we want… If we accomplish everything we set out to accomplish, what is heaven for then?

Now you might be thinking how in the world that notion would be relevant to share in a business strategic planning meeting. I don’t blame you, I would be thinking that too, if I intended to use that meaning.

But of course my application wasn’t drawing on that meaning.

For me, the crux of the matter is to focus — and work hard — on minimizing the difference between our reach and our grasp.

Now I’m not suggesting we necessarily not reach for the stars.  This to me isn’t an automatic we need to manage our expectations play, although that’s where it could land.  No; for me, it is way more about increasing our capabilities, i.e. improving our grasp.  In more business / OD-speak, it is about tweaking and syncing up the structure, policies, work processes, culture, talent… the plane will fly based on how it’s designed; shouldn’t we redesign when we want it to fly differently?

<sigh>

I really don’t lose my patience that often.  Really, I don’t.  But there are times that test me, and one of those times is when I repeatedly see goals that are set with only perfunctory attention given to investing in building the organizational capability to reach them.

This is a particularly acute hot button because I really can’t stand the predominant result of this — leaders pointing fingers and placing blame at people, and not owning the root cause of the underperformance — insufficient organizational design.

And there’s an insidious reinforcing loop that’s often in play — when we set aggressive targets, but begin falling short because we haven’t redesigned to enable the performance, leaders will react, make short-term decisions to reach the short-term targets (to get those year-end bonuses) but which weaken the organization’s capability and leaders’ decision-making ability to break the cycle and accomplish the longer-term strategic vision…

So there’s this annual business strategy cycle that is my version of Bill Murray’s groundhog day; please, please let me wake up to a new day and a strategic planning process that is different than the last several…

Please don’t misunderstand; the strategic vision should be a stretch, it should challenge the organization to accomplish bigger and better in order to stay strong and competitive.  Because it is the result of strategic thinking, a strategic vision can inspire, and energize. It can motivate to reach.

But strategic visions need to incorporate comprehensive strategic plans that emphasize building the requisite organizational capability.

These plans raise confidence that the strategic vision is realizable.  These plans strengthen our grasp.

What do you think?

But wait, one last thing.  Let’s look one more time at that quote.

Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?

What could that “Ah” mean?

I imagine Browning is saying but consider this or look at it this way …

Ah, indeed.  That’s all I’m asking too…
john greco sig

Can we please stop talking about how bad the economy is?

Fundraising

recessionThat is it . . . I am fed up and can’t stop myself from saying something that has been on my mind for a little while now. Can non-profit organizations please stop running around and telling anyone who will listen that the economy is bad and the recession is hurting their agency?
I hear my non-profit friends (both staff and board volunteers) bemoaning how bad it is and how they’ve been impacted. I know that I’ve heard it at least once a month going back to the 2008 stock market meltdown, which by the way was FIVE YEARS ago.
I totally understand why people were talking about this 12 to 24 months removed from the epicenter, but as I just pointed out more than half-of-a-decade has passed since that time.
The fact of the matter is the recession officially ended in June 2009, according to Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Don’t believe me? Just go ask Google.
In fact, the Blackbaud Index just arrived in my email inbox, and they are estimating that charitable giving rose 4.9% in 2013. Additionally, online giving increased by approximately by 13.5%.
When I see numbers like these, it always stirs my emotions when juxtaposed against comments such as:

  • “The economy is bad and donors just aren’t giving.“
  • “We can’t ask people for money while the economy is still doing so poorly.“
  • “Our agency hasn’t recovered from the economic downturn.“
  • “Our board members are afraid to ask their friends for charitable contributions as long as the economy is doing so poorly.“

Believe it or not, I heard some variation of each of these comments just this last weekend!
At first, I found myself shaking my head and asking the obvious question, “WHY?” However, I quickly stopped that when I realized that I know the reasons why. Here is what I think drives those comments:

  • Fear is irrational and people believe what they believe in spite of facts.
  • Some parts of the country are taking more time to emerge from recession.
  • Some non-profit agencies never adjusted their revenue model and resource development plan to accommodate for what economists are calling “The New Normal“.
  • Some non-profit professionals are always looking for excuses to justify poor fundraising performance.
  • Some misguided fundraising professionals and volunteers think pleading poverty and pointing at the economy makes for a good “case for support” (which really works the opposite way on how donors perceive your case).

Regardless of whether or not you believe these reasons, the reality is that we need to shake ourselves out of this mindset. Our clients deserve better and whining has never been shown to solve problems.
So, what should you do to combat this mindset? I suggest the following:

  1. Involve your volunteers in developing a new resource development plan and answering this simple question: “If how we raised money before the recession doesn’t work anymore, then what should we do to secure the resources we need to fund our mission today?“
  2. Involve your volunteers in developing a new case for support document and build consensus to stop talking to donors about the economy.
  3. Be the change you want to see in the world and stop talking about the economy.
  4. Take your volunteers by the hand and go with them on cultivation and stewardship visits with prospects and donors.
  5. Engage in benchmarking activities and compare your agency’s fundraising performance to other non-profit organizations (e.g. check out Blackbaud’s performance comparison tool by clicking here).

What are you doing to combat this insidious, self-defeating mindset that is still pervasive in many non-profit boardrooms? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and experiences. We can learn from each other.
On a side note, before you take me to task with comments about my insensitivity, please know that I know there are people out there who are still hurting. I have never said there weren’t. In fact, I know some of those people, and I am sure you do, too. However, the reality is that non-profits cannot wait until there is no more unemployment. Our agencies cannot wait until economic indicators are back to the ridiculous 1990s levels. Those who wait for that to occur won’t be in business for much longer. Let’s rediscover that often-celebrated “American spirit” of picking ourselves off the ground and doing the hard work to get our agencies moving again. 
There! I’ve said it . . . now please feel free to excoriate me.  🙂
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Making the case for setting a clear shared vision

organizational development, Planning

Forward!

By John Greco
Originally published on June 14, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog
monk_benedictine_100If you cry “Forward!” you must make clear the direction in which to go.  Don’t you see that if you fail to do that and simply call out the word to a monk and a revolutionary, they will go in precisely the opposite directions.
— Anton Chekov, Russian dramatist

To make sense of this quote, we need to understand monks and revolutionaries.
I imagine what Chekov had in mind when citing a monk is someone who lives within an established routine, with not a lot of change or variance, and with a reverence for the past.  I enhance that image further by thinking that monks have so much reverence for the past that they keep it alive in the present.
I imagine what Chekov had in mind when referencing a revolutionary is very different — strong intention, with strong action, to break from the current status quo, and create something radically new.  I enhance that image further by thinking that revolutionaries have such an appetite for immediate change that they want to pull the future into the present.
Forward, to a monk, means no change is necessary nor anticipated.
Forward, to a revolutonary, means change is assumed and must happen NOW!
It is easy to see, then, that “forward” to a monk might mean committing to a strict adherence to the practices and traditions of the past.  And to a revolutionary, ”forward” might mean the accelerated establishment of new and different policies and practices, NOW!
There is likely a monk-like colleague and a revolutionary-like colleague sitting to the left and right of you.  Same, sitting on either side of each of them.
And which way do you lean?
The implications for leaders are considerable.
We need to be explicit with plans and strategies and visions.   What is changing?  What isn’t changing?  We might see ways to bridge the gap; we can speak to how planned changes actually honor the past (which will get the attention of the monks) while speaking to the promise of changes in short order (which will pique the interest of the revolutionaries).
Just think of what this means vis-à-vis mixed generational workforces.  And vis-à-vis rapid technological advancement.  And social change.
Oh boy!
So; not unlike the high-wire act of change, calibrating and recalibrating the messaging is important; if the monks have inordinate influence, marginalization, irrelevance, and extinction are real risks.  If revolutionaries hold sway, chaos and confusion disable.
In either scenario, there is not progress.
There is no forward.
john greco sig

What is your agency's case for doing some planning?

Board governance, Planning

planningAs someone with two degrees in planning, I catch myself all the time with my non-profit clients explaining that the solution to their problems is that they need a plan. It might be a strategic plan, resource development plan, or board development plan . . . but oftentimes I am amazed at how many times failing non-profit agencies just haven’t invested in creating plans.  I mean, come on folks! Who hasn’t heard the old expression, “If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail“?
In recent years, my point of view around planning has evolved slightly. I now believe there is a time and place for planning. When there is too much chaos in the external environment or too much internal crisis or turnover, planning is at best a wasteful exercise and at worst can contribute to the problems at hand.
Of course, I still bristle when I hear board members say something like:

“I don’t want my agency engaged in planning. In the end, all that happens is the plan gets put on the shelf to collect dust. We need less planning and more doing!”

When I hear statements like this, it is usually indicative of:

  • an agency without a culture of planning
  • staff without an understanding of how to engage a board
  • board volunteers without an understanding of implementation tools
  • a board who doesn’t manage or evaluate its staff
  • an agency that is either standing still (best case scenario) or in crisis (worst cast scenario)

When trying to make the case for engaging in some sort of planning activity to a board of directors, I typically talk about “roles and responsibilities” of the board of directors. As you might imagine, this approach is usually met with yawns and eye rolling.
However, I recently found a blog post by Nell Edgington titled “5 Ways Great Strategy Can Transform a Nonprofit” while clicking around on a LinkedIn group dedicated to strategic planning for non-profit organizations. It was in that post I think Nell makes a much better case for planning that might be better received by resistant boards.
Here is what she says:

“People and organizations that make large gifts to a nonprofit are in effect investing in the future of that organization. And if you can’t articulate your future plans in a thoughtful, compelling way, funders won’t make that larger investment.”

Duh!
So, what has been your sales pitch to your board when trying to convince them to roll up their sleeves and engage in some planning. Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below. We can all learn from each other.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Is your non-profit designed for performance?

organizational development

Fighting the Physics

By John Greco
Originally published on April 9, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog
performance7“Grab a piece of paper.  Make your best paper airplane.”
And the management workshop immediately takes off!
“Okay, let ‘em fly!”
Some take flight spectacularly.  Others not so much.  This usually causes some guffaws, and some good natured ribbing.  I generally pick one of the more “flight-challenged” ones —
“Okay, Bill, come on up to the front of the room.  Here’s what I want you to do.  I want you to fly your plane right down the center of the room.  Aim right for Debbie, right at her! and have it land on the table right in front of her.  Can you picture that?  Be positive.  You can do it!  Okay, keep the vision of that flight in your mind, and let it fly.”
The airplane generally goes anywhere but down the center of the room.  Debbie is momentarily relieved.
“Bill; let’s try again.  You can do this!  I believe in you.  Remember the vision?  Right down the center of the room, right at Debbie.  But this time, let me give you a quick training lesson.  Hold your airplane a third of the way from the point, between your thumb and forefinger.  Flex your elbow, pull it back, envision the flight, and then advance your arm and release.  Okay, try it.”
The airplane again goes anywhere but down the center of the room.  Debbie starts to realize she has nothing to fear.
“Okay, Bill, let’s get serious.  I’ve got twenty dollars here (as I pull a twenty out of my pocket) and it is all yours if you simply fly your plane down the center of the room, right at Debbie, and have it land right in front of her.  Envision the flight, use the technique I showed you, and think of that twenty.  Okay, go!”
The airplane now goes … not down the center.  And not by Debbie; she’s pretty relaxed and smiling now…
“Alright Bill.  (My tone has changed.)  “Bill, I told you I believe in you, and still do, but this is your plane to fly.  I asked you to envision your plane flying down the center, to Debbie.  I trained you.  I even motivated you with a twenty in cash.  I’m running out of patience.  I need you to fly your plane down the center of the room at Debbie.  Or else.  Do it.”
Nothing different; no improvement whatsoever.
“I don’t understand.  I believed in you Bill.  I helped you envision success.  I trained you.  I motivated you.  And then I threatened you.  And now I need to fire you…”
performance8Often in these sessions, after one or two unsuccessful flights I see the “pilot” start adjusting the paper plane: a different fold there, a bending of the wings, sharper folds at the point…  When I see this, I react —“Whoa!”  What are you doing?”
“Adjusting the plane so it will fly better.”
Hmmm.  Yes indeed.  Adjusting the plane to fly better.
Paper planes — and organizations — fly as they are designed.  Their performance is fundamentally by design.
And when we want a certain type or level of performance from a paper plane or organization that is not designed to produce that performance, we are in fact “fighting the physics.”
Fighting the physics is what we do when we expect results from a system that has not been designed to produce those results.  It reflects an ignorance of cause and effect; it points fingers and places blame on the people in the system instead of the design of the system.

  • We fight the physics when we expect teamwork while rewarding individual achievement.
  • We fight the physics when we encourage innovation while emphasizing sacred cows, third rails, and CLMs (career-limiting moves).
  • We fight the physics when we expect speed and responsiveness in customer service while structuring multiple layers, enforcing centralized decision making and requiring formal communication channels.
  • We fight the physics when we expect efficiency while not investing in repeatable processes and enabling technology.

Now; there’s nothing wrong with positive thinking; research supports the benefits of a positive mental attitude.  Research also supports how envisioning an outcome can help actualize the vision.  No doubt that when we have a skill or knowledge gap, training makes a difference.  Incentives, be they monetary or otherwise, certainly do get our attention.  As do threats.
But if the organization plane was not designed to fly down the center of the room and land in front of Debbie, no amount of positive thinking, envisioning, training, motivation, and threats will fundamentally and substantially improve it’s performance.
Fighting the physics always results in the physics winning.
Debbie is safe.
We are not.
john greco sig