Category: strategy

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?

 

board, communications, leadership, management, strategy

Does your board understand its job?

When people join a nonprofit board, they often do it because they either care about the cause or because they’re looking for the experience – or both. But they don’t always know what the roles and responsibilities of the Board are, and they often aren’t given the proper orientation.

As a result, I’ve seen many boards operate inefficiently and ineffectively. Sometimes they micromanage programs. Sometimes they fail to hold leadership accountable. Sometimes they don’t always act as effective evangelists for the organization. And all too often they don’t have a cohesive understanding of the organization – or a common vision to guide it.

While the board is the ultimate leadership of any entity, it is the responsibility of the senior management (usually the Executive Director or President) to help orient the Board and define its role in guiding the organization.

So what are the roles of the board? What should it be doing to maximize its effectiveness for the organization – and what should it not be doing? Here’s a brief rundown:

  • Manage resources. This is an obvious one, but the legal obligation of any Board of Directors is to oversee and ultimately be responsible for the organization’s financial well-being. This doesn’t mean line-item approvals or even approving department budgets, but the board should review organization-wide budgets and keep tabs on its assets and liabilities. If the ship sinks, the board is the captain that goes down with it.
  • Manage leadership. Everyone’s got a boss, including the Executive Director or President of the organization. The board is the supervisor of the organization’s top brass, and as with any supervisor, it is the board’s job to support the Executive Director and review his or her performance. Just as other employees go through a performance review, so should the Executive Director, with clearly defined expectations and competencies. The Executive Director should also have professional development that strengthens his or her ability to lead the organization effectively towards its goals.
  • Provide strategic guidance and focus. As the highest leadership of the organization, the board should help define the organization’s mission and vision, and the strategies the organization will take to be successful in achieving them. The board should shape and oversee the organization’s programs in terms of their alignment with the mission and progress, but without micromanaging it: the board should not review program details – just shape the direction for programs and review higher-level measures of progress. The board is also responsible for ensuring the organization – its leadership and its programs – stays focused on the mission, and does not wander off chasing distractions (aka “mission-drift”).
  • Monitor and evaluate. As part of the strategic planning process, measurable goals and outcomes should be defined, as well as indicators of progress and measures of success. Without monitoring every detailed indicator for each program, the board should keep tabs on the organization’s progress towards achieving its mission, including strategic goals and program goals. Just as the board should periodically review the performance of the Executive Director, the board should also periodically review the performance of the organization towards its goals.
  • Be evangelists. Many boards have requirements for financial contributions to the organization, but beyond giving money there is the important job of promoting the organization. Board members should be talking to their networks and the public about the organization and garnering support for its work. Board members who join in support of the cause will be better at this than those just looking for experience on a board, but in either case the staff should train the board to speak effectively on behalf of the organization.
  • Be a moral compass. In addition to keeping the organization focused on its mission, it should also ensure its integrity by adhering to legal standards and setting the highest standards of ethics. This is partly done through its own behavior, partly through the policies it enacts and enforces, partly through its management of the Executive Director, and partly through its review of programs and resources. A public charity is ineffective if it is corrupt, immoral, or has a tarnished reputation. After all, if it can’t be trusted, why would anyone support or invest in its work?

A board can be a key asset in support of an organization’s success, but this can only happen if the board assumes its proper roles and responsibilities. And just as any good employee knows how to manage up to his or her supervisor, so should an organization know how to manage up and support its board.

Do you think your board has the right role for your organization? Has it been difficult to manage the board or to maximize their effectiveness? What problems are you facing with your board and what has been helpful for getting the most of out your board?

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?