Category: strategy

communications, logic model, messaging, nonprofit sector, strategy

Here’s why your outcomes aren’t clear

Dear Vu,

I just read your blog (as I often do because it’s good stuff that everyone should read) and as with your post a few weeks ago about nonprofits not acting enough like businesses, I felt the need to respond to this one.

First of all, I should say that I agree wholeheartedly with the points you make about the difficulty of defining, achieving, and measuring nonprofit outcomes. Nonprofits do not operate on a strictly dollar-for-dollar basis where outputs are instantly converted to profits. Our return on investment is measured not products sold or dollars earned but in social change over years. Producing outcomes takes dedication, patience, and yes, sophisticated measures of evaluation that donors don’t often fund. I like that you point out the non-linear nature of the work and the importance of process, because we need to remember that things are not always straightforward and that’s okay.

That said, I’m surprised at how insulted you are at the suggestion that nonprofits do not have clear outcomes. Now, granted, whoever wrote that comment about outcomes and ROI may have a certain meaning about outcomes that’s more about the very nature of nonprofit work. But in a more literal sense, the fact is that many nonprofits do not, in fact, have clear outcomes.

I viewed your organization’s evaluation map and I was thoroughly impressed. But you have to understand that many, many organizations do not have such thoughtful or sophisticated logic models for their organizations. Heck, I’ve worked with organizations that don’t even have logic models for any of their programs, let alone ones that include inputs and tie program outputs to short-term and long-term outcomes. Are there organizations that are as on top of things as your organization is? Absolutely. But throughout my career – first in nonprofit organizations, then in philanthropy, and more recently as a nonprofit consultant – I can say that your evaluation map is indeed the exception, not the norm. I would love to be proven wrong – to learn that the vast majority of nonprofits have thoughtful logic models for their organizations – but my experience has been that too many do not have them.

The map aside, let me tell you why I don’t think nonprofits have clear outcomes: they don’t know how to define an outcome. Sure, they may think they do, but time and time again I see outputs instead of outcomes. Yes, outputs are easier to define and measure, absolutely they are. But that doesn’t make them outcomes. Even in your own evaluation map, which I think is top-notch, there are outputs listed as outcomes (e.g. gaining skills and participating in advocacy efforts under short-term outcomes, more clients served and increased number of leaders in intermediate-term outcomes). From my perspective, you may call these outcomes, but they aren’t really. Results? Yes. Change? Sure. But outcomes? Not quite. It doesn’t detract from their value or importance, but again, I would say they aren’t clear outcomes.

And yes, some outcome statements are indeed fuzzy. I’m not talking about the “warm and fuzzy” kind of outcome (though there are plenty of those in the nonprofit world – and I often like them), but fuzzy in terms of their definition and clarity. This is usually because they’re worded in a way that leaves it unclear as to what the outcome is or how one would know if it was achieved. For instance, on your own evaluation map, Outcome 6 is “Increase in meaningful collaborative activities.” What do you mean by “meaningful” in this context? What exactly are collaborative activities? And when you say increase, does that mean that one more than the current number is sufficient to claim success? Yes, I’m being excessively critical, but I’m also trying to point out why outcomes are often seen as unclear or fuzzy. Even when you have a true outcome (as opposed to an output), if you don’t state it in an articulate way, it will open you up to the criticisms to which you take such great offense.

I should mention that I work with lots of organizations on this exact problem – clarity and definition of outcomes – because I too hate the criticisms. I am adamant that nonprofit work is worth the investment, even if it isn’t a financial return that you get. But I also hear the criticisms and try to learn from them, and the truth is that nonprofits can do better at defining and articulating their outcomes.

So what can nonprofits do to improve their outcome statements and reduce some of the criticisms (given that you won’t please the people who just want everything measured in dollars of ROI)? Here are some basic steps to take:

  • Know what an outcome is. Outcomes are not the same as outputs, but rather are a change in the behavior of people, institutions, or a system. This is the real, lasting change that you’re after with your work. It’s what we call “impact.”
  • Frame your outcomes as SMART goals. Yeah, yeah, I know we’re all sick of hearing about SMART objectives, but if you can state your outcomes in specific, measurable, and even time-bound ways, it gives them greater definition and clarity. Saying things will be “better” or “more effective” doesn’t really give much definition to an outcome.
  • Think in concrete terms. I’ve written before about improving your communications by cutting the crap, but this is also true for outcome statements. If you don’t want people to think your outcomes are fuzzy or fluffy, then make sure they are worded in a way that paints a very concrete picture of what you mean. Don’t leave people with questions about what exactly your outcome is. Be concrete. Be direct. Cut the crap.

Again, I don’t disagree with you on the challenges of defining, achieving, and measuring outcomes in the nonprofit world. And I know that you’re responding to a slightly different criticism that’s more about the nature of nonprofit results. But I wanted to present my own tough love perspective, which is to say that nonprofits need to do a better job of defining and articulating their outcome statements. I’m not saying it’s always easy, but it will reap rewards: not only will it reduce such criticisms, but it should create a more compelling case for support and it should give organizations more clarity and focus in their work.

Thanks for always putting forth such great thought-provoking pieces, and an early congratulations on your forthcoming addition to the family!

Eric

board, leadership, management, strategy

Keeping your Board in its place

I’m currently working with an organization that is at a point in its growth where it needs stronger leadership and more clearly defined governance structures. In working with the executives around this matter, I recently participated in a client’s Board meeting to advise the members on their roles and responsibilities.

After explaining the typical duties of Board members, I thought it important to also talk about what Board members should not do, and one of the things I mentioned was not micromanaging the organization.

In my experience, too many Boards get too much in the weeds with the organization they lead. When they do, they can make life difficult for the employees: they may take away authority from management, put unnecessary pressure on staff, and remove autonomy and self-determination. As if nonprofit staff don’t have enough stress – too much work, not enough resources to get it done, and not enough pay to make non-work life enjoyable. Now we’re going to add the pressure of pleasing Board members to our plates? Yeesh.

The Board should stay at the strategic level: it should set the overall course for the organization and then make sure it stays headed in the right direction. The Board should trust the people hired to work in the organization to handle the daily execution and implementation of that strategy. These people were hired for their skills and expertise, and they know the work more intimately from spending lots of time doing it.

That’s not to say Board members can’t get involved in the work. Board members can be great resources that staff can and should turn to for assistance. I’ve seen staff reach out to certain members for help with problems, and I’ve seen individual Board members offer their wisdom, advice, or support for particular projects or programs of interest. It’s great for the staff, who could use a helping hand, and great for the Board member, who gets a better understanding of the work while becoming more personally invested in it.

How can I say that the Board should stay at the strategic level but can also get involved in the work? Where is the line?

The difference is “the Board” vs. “individual Board members.” The Board as a governing body should stay at the strategic level. Yes, the Board should be informed of details relevant to their decision-making, particularly around financials, but otherwise they don’t need to know about the day-to-day occurrences of the organization. Individual Board members can get involved with the organization as is needed or appropriate, but when the group gathers as a whole, it should focus its decision-making on a higher level.

The Board is the ultimate governing body of an organization, but in order to maximize its effectiveness, it must know its place. Executive leadership should help guide the Board to harness the collective wisdom, experience, and enthusiasm of its members, but protect the staff from any unnecessary pressures or burdens that will reduce their performance. If all goes well, staff are enabled and empowered to be more productive and more successful.

 

messaging, planning, rationale, strategy, theory of change

How a theory of change should inform your mission

Many of my clients have difficulty articulating their work in a clear, concise, and compelling way. In my initial conversations with these potential clients, it quickly becomes clear that they do not fully understand the rationale behind their work, or how their work has broader, longer-term impacts on the problem they’re trying to solve. This isn’t unusual, but it is a problem for the organization. This lack of understanding leads to a lack of focus, a lack of clarity among staff and Board members, and a resulting lack of collective purpose and drive. And so inevitably I end up working with these clients on developing a theory of change, one that brings greater clarity, greater focus, and greater cohesion to the organization.

Working with one organization, I was approached by a Board member who was brought in to participate in the process. She asked me a keen question: how might developing a theory of change affect the organization’s mission?

To answer this, let me back up a bit. When an organization is created, it is created with a purpose (hopefully a singular one). The organization’s statement of purpose is what we call a mission statement. It defines what an organization does and what problem it aims to solve. The mission may evolve over time, but the essence of the mission generally remains consistent for the organization.

Most founders of nonprofits have a clear purpose in mind – they know what the organization will do and what it hopes to achieve – but they may not understand the bigger picture. They don’t consider much outside the scope of their own organization’s work, or worse yet, they believe they can solve the whole problem by themselves. But the truth is this: every organization works within a larger system of actors who are working on the same issue.

Some of these actors are working on the same issue from a different angle, but some are taking the very same approach, though they may not be aware of each other. In fact, some organizations aren’t even aware of other groups working in the same geographic area on the same issue with the same partners or constituents! And when this happens, and there are redundant and even competing organizations, it becomes difficult to define an organization’s unique value proposition – what does it offer in solving the problem that no one else can or does?

In other cases, organizations have been doing the same work for years and years with no seeming reduction of the problem. In this situation, they fail to understand the larger system and how their organizations are actually creating impact. How does your organization’s work actually solve the problem in the long-term? Systems are complex, with many different interacting parts. Transformation of the system will require thoughtful planning, clear focus, and working with others who are tackling the same issue. Without knowing the system and its different points of leverage, how can you truly understand what is needed to create lasting change?

This is where a theory of change comes in. A theory of change is not a statement of what will happen when your organization achieves its mission. A theory of change describes what is needed to transform the entire system in which your organization works. It goes beyond the work of your organization because your organization alone cannot solve the problem (despite what you may think). In fact, the vision of the system is your organization’s vision statement, but hopefully it is not unique to your organization and instead is shared by the other actors working in the system. Because you are all working in the same system towards solving the same problem. A theory of change not only provides a view of the system but also where your organization fits within it.

I think of the theory of change as the nonprofit equivalent of a business plan. A business plan is used by for-profit companies to define what the company is about – its product, its customers, and its operations – but it also describes the market it will enter. This way the business owners (and potential investors) will understand how the new business will compete and survive in the long term by providing a unique value to the marketplace. Similarly, a theory of change describes the system an organization is entering and what unique value the organization contributes to the system.

So will a theory of change alter an organization’s mission statement? Actually, yes, it might. Ideally, a theory of change is done as part of the organization’s formation – like with business planning – so its mission statement accurately reflects its unique role in the system. But since most if not all organizations do the theory of change after their mission statement, the theory of change will likely alter the mission somewhat. Not usually in its essence, but in its focus and how it is articulated.

(Side note: It’s backwards to do a mission statement or strategic plan before doing a theory of change – like planning your route to a destination without first looking at a map of the region – but most people don’t know of a theory of change until after they form an organization and a funder asks them what their theory of change is….)

For instance, in understanding the system, your organization may realize that there is a particular need that you alone can fill, and that may become a more important element of your organization’s work. Conversely, there may be areas of your work that overlap with other organizations’ work, and you may cease those programs or at least spend less resources on them, focusing your mission on what is unique to your organization. If parts of your organization’s work tackle different aspects of the system, you may decide to focus on just one, narrowing your mission. Or through the theory of change development process, you simply may gain greater clarity on the true value that your organization can provide, and reframe your work through that lens.

The particular Board member who asked me the question got to experience some shifts to her own organization’s mission. Again, the essence was the same but the focus and purpose was more specific and focused. The organization understood what needed to get done, where it could add the most value, and how it could best solve the problem, and that led to greater articulation of its mission.

I’ve seen organizations shift their missions in light of a new theory of change, but in the end, the organization benefits from a greater comprehension of what needs to get done and how it can best add value to transforming the system into their vision.

Does your theory of change bring greater clarity to your organization’s mission? Does it take a broader view of the system and identify your organization’s unique value within it? Does it help you articulate your organization’s work and purpose?

If you’re interested in developing a theory of change that does all of the above, check out The ToC Workshop, a special eight-week program designed to help you get the most out of a theory of change for your organization.