Category: planning

communications, messaging, planning, strategy

Don’t forget why you’re communicating

During my time in philanthropy, it was common to see communication plans from grantees where the goal was “to raise awareness among the general public” – or some variation on that idea. But there’s two fundamental problems with this aim: (1) there’s no such thing as “the general public” (everyone is different and it’s important to specify and segment your audiences); and (2) the goal is never to raise awareness.

When grantees tell me that they want to raise awareness, my response is always to ask, Why? To what end? What is the point of raising awareness? In other words, what do you hope people will do differently as a result of their awareness?

There is a common perception that if people only knew about the problem, there wouldn’t be a problem. But awareness isn’t enough, because while knowledge can be motivating, in the end we want people to behave differently, and behavior is action. So raising awareness may be important, but it is a means to an end, and that end is some desired action.

Communications is about transmitting messages to targeted audiences, but in service of a programmatic outcome. What change do you want to see, and what action do you want people to take in order to make it happen?

This is why all communications should have a call to action. What specific thing do you want people to do? When grantees tell me they want public support for a cause, I ask them how the grantee wants them to express that support? Do you want them to vote? Do you want them to tell their representatives? Do you want them to write to the local paper? Do you want a donation? Once you succeed in getting people to care, what can they do to help?

Good communications efforts are in service of programmatic goals and that means creating change through targeted actions. Don’t lose sight of the real objectives, or you risk wasting effort. Be thoughtful, be strategic, and stay focused on impact.

Are your communications efforts designed to achieve program goals? Do you make sure to always include a call to action in your communications? How can you plan your communications to achieve your organization’s mission?

 

fundraising, management, planning

How to set your priorities straight

In the nonprofit world, there is always plenty to do – more than we can actually accomplish at any one time. And sometimes we have a whole list of things that seem both important and urgent.

In his book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, author Stephen R. Covey uses a method for setting personal priorities, noting that we often focus on the immediate and unimportant (e.g. email) at the expense of longer-term and more important goals.

In working at and with different nonprofit organizations and foundations, I’ve learned a useful framework to help set a program or organization’s priorities. I call it the Lift-Reward-Risk Method.

Whether you’re making choices about strategic investments, evaluating potential program partners, or assessing a list of potential donors or funders, the Lift-Reward-Risk Method can help you examine where to invest your time, effort, and resources.

Here’s how it works. For each item on your list, evaluate the following:

  • Lift. How much effort will it take to do? (Heavy, Medium, Light)
  • Reward. What’s the potential gain if you succeed? (High, Medium, Low)
  • Risk. What is the probability of failure (or, inversely, success)? (High, Medium, Low)

So let’s say you have a list of potential funders and you need to prioritize so you can focus your efforts on writing grant proposals. If there’s a funder that is a heavy lift, a low reward, and a high risk, then knock it down on your list – it’s probably not worth the effort. However, If a funder is a heavy lift and high risk but a high reward, it might be worth prioritizing. If you have a bunch of light funders with low rewards and low risks, it might be worth it to invest time in some and then invest the rest of your time in that other big whale of a funder. Either way, at least you can have a clear decision-making process for setting priorities. This is useful for your own work but just as important, if not more important, when working with a team. It helps to make sure everyone is on the same page about the work and where the team should focus its energy.

And remember: lowering the priority of something doesn’t mean not doing it – it just means not doing it now or not investing as much time and effort into it now. Because we all have limited time and resources and we should be using them in the most efficient and effective way possible.

So consider the lift, reward, and risk of your options. It will make it easier to move forward with confidence.

Is your team or organization clear about priorities? Is there a clear process for making decisions about priorities, and how to handle unexpected opportunities? What methods do you use to set priorities for yourself, your team, and your organization?

 

 

fundraising, planning, strategy

Are you prepared for the worst?

When we do our planning, we do our best to take a realistic look at what might happen in the future. Whether it’s for budgeting or program planning, we often use our best knowledge of the past and present to foresee the likely future.

While we sometimes look at probabilities and risks, we usually only plan for one scenario – the one we feel represents the most accurate picture of how things will unfold. The problem is that we’re only preparing for one scenario, likely though it may be.

Moreover, often times that one scenario is skewed by various factors. Because while we do our best to set expectations for ourselves, we’re also working to set expectations for others: our managers, senior leadership, the Board, funders, key donors, etc. We want the scenario to be realistic but we also want it to be exciting, inspiring, and worthy of support. So although we may be conscious of the risks and how things can go wrong, we don’t necessarily account for those accurately in our planning.

In fact, in most proposals I’ve reviewed the risks section is by far the weakest, where organizations either say there are no risks or they are completely prepared for all risks – and neither is usually true. But who is going to write a proposal that says there are big risks and we might not be prepared for them? That doesn’t exactly build the kind of confidence we want funders to have in our organizations and programs.

The thing is, we can’t predict the future. And though there may be a likely scenario, there are also other scenarios we may encounter. Some may be in our favor, and others may work against us, but both types pose challenges and opportunities for our organizations. If we want to survive whatever comes our way, we should be prepared for more than one future. As the saying goes, “adapt or die.”

My recommendation to clients is that they plan for three scenarios: (1) a negative scenario, (2) a business-as-usual scenario, and (3) an ideal scenario. In the first, there are assumptions about losses and failures – not getting certain funding, an indefatigable obstacle to program work, opposition from an unforeseen source, etc. The second scenario is the one we usually plan for – a continuation of the current conditions, a future that is simply an extension of previous experience. And the third is what happens if things go our way – we get that big grant we’re vying for, our program exceeds expectations, unlikely windfalls happen, etc. By looking at these three, you can make contingency plans and be prepared to adapt to the good, the bad, and the expected. If you don’t get the funding you expected, how will it affect your operations, your programs, and your staffing? If that unlikely policy gets signed into law, opening up opportunities for advancing your mission, how will you allocate or acquire resources to take advantage of them? Adaptive management is how organizations not only stay alive but thrive, and scenario planning is a solid tool for adaptive management.

You don’t have to share your plans with everyone. If you think funders don’t want to see your worst-case scenario, you’re under no obligation to show them. At the same time, some funders actually appreciate that you’ve thought things through and that you’re prepared for risks. It demonstrates a sophistication and strength of management that many organizations don’t have. It’s something that you could set you apart and above others. But again, most important is that your organization can weather storms and grow in sunlight.

So be prepared. A little extra time planning can make your organization more adaptive and more resilient. That’s a risk worth taking.

What kind of scenario planning does your organization do? How do you account for risks and their mitigation? Have you ever been unprepared for a given situation?