Thanx for the kind regards on going full time. I think being fully focused on our local community is important and I look forward to serving more clients!

One bit of clarification on the post. I am not sure that nonprofits necessarily “move through” the stages as a sequence, rather thegrowth dimensions are a constellation of decision pathways. Caveat, I do believe that all nonprofit organizations must grapple with operational growth because without the stable base of fully funded programs and a strong underlying capacity and infrastructure no organization can thrive or be innovative. However beyond that basis, I think the other dimensions of growth are a set of choices. Replicating a program nationally takes a very different skill-set than being a broad social service provider addressing multiple client needs. Big Brothers Big Sisters or Habitat for Humanity, are successful because of a narrow and singular focus. There is a reason that strong nationally replicated programs do one thing (or very few things) well. Conversely, looking at the local level, we can have Human Solutions or Metropolitan Family Service, Impact Northwest, and many, many very successful nonprofits who expand programs thoughtfully and clearly in ways that magnify their social impact. My point is that the growth models of replicators and expanders are different.

As a result, I am more inclined to think about case studies of nonprofit growth that might include elements of two or three growth strategies. To that end, you sit in the middle of a great case study of a nonprofit doing multiple work well. You know I am a fan of 211info and while I am not expert in your organization, it is clear that you are serious about operational growth, program growth, and scale. Yet, I would be hard pressed to think of a nonprofit that sequenced through stages going deep in one area, broad in many areas, and then wide geographically with a replication approach.

In my consulting practice, I have found that growth is contextual and driven by strong needs assessment work. Out of such assessments, typically one or two growth domains emerge and rare would be the organization the could or should sequence through all dimensions of growth. It is to that end, that I argue considering the dimensions of growth is important to the work of strategic planning.

Regarding the post, I’d love to hear some stories of how groups have moved through these phases.

Thanks!

But the lack of strategic thinking, and even more, being able to do that in the moment while you are executing, is a much,much bigger challenge than just the nature of the content of strategic planning processes. It takes a lot of work for many boards and staff to first understand the promise it holds, then to figure out what true strategy would be, and then, to practice it. For many, the specifics of old fashioned plans and approaches are like comfort food, reinforcing the status quo in a place where they are very happy to stay.