For the last couple of decades, technology has been advancing at a breakneck speed, with each generation of technology continuing to reinvent, if not make obsolete, the previous generation.  At the personal level we now enjoy expanded communications, near real time sharing of our lives though social media, and digital tools that allow us to be both consumers and producers.  At the organizational level, the dizzying speed of change makes long-term strategic planning and short-term operational planning more complicated.  For nonprofits, who are often constrained by artificially low operating costs, the strategic challenge of technology use is even greater. The proliferation of new media tools expands communication, program and collaboration opportunities that can strengthen donor and volunteer involvement and engagement.  Additionally, new technology tools and platforms can increase organizational efficiency across the areas of financial, human resource, donor and volunteer management. The pressure of operating on razor thin budgets makes challenging for nonprofits to understand how they can capitalize on such tools with fear that the wrong “technology bet” will drain vital resources.  Indeed, the technology advances, “back in the day” of the mid 1990’s led me to pursue a Master’s degree in Educational Technology to help me understand the role of technology in education and nonprofit organizational performance.  My purpose of studying educational technology was to better equip me to help nonprofits navigate the challenges of technology integration.  In this post, I want to outline some facilitation principles and strategies to help teams discuss and manage the process of technology adoption.

.

Function Drives Technology: The first and foremost principle of technology is that function drives technology decisions.  In facilitating conversations about technology the starting point is not technology but “technology for what purpose?”  I recently sat through an orientation to the Apple iPad with a team considering adopting the new technology as a way to enhance team productivity.  The person facilitating the orientation began by asking what functionality was being sought by the team.  There was clearly some vagueness to the purposes expressed by the team.  “I’m looking for a document reader” was most common functionality followed by some notions of calendaring and communicating.  Eventually the group discussed editing documents.  The pivotal gestalt of conversation was when the trainer acknowledged that the iPad was a “consumption” tool rather than a “creative” tool.  In essence, the trainer suggested that, at this point, the functionality of the IPad was about media interaction, reading, communicating and less about document creation and sharing. There is no ending to this story, rather, it serves as a useful metaphor for this facilitation principle.  A clearly understanding of function should always drive change and adoption.

.

Technology is the Media and not the Message:  As long as technology has been used as a tool for improving educational and organizational performance, there had been a debate about technology being the “cause” of improvement.  Many studies have demonstrated that technology rarely (if ever) is the cause of change but rather technology can, at times,  be an efficient (or the most efficient) media/tool to deliver the organizational change. The classic metaphor that is used to describe the relationship between technology and performance change is that of  a farmer growing tomatoes.  A farmer can get tomatoes to the market through u-pick, can deliver the tomatoes to the market by walking, horse and cart or truck.  The point is that while there may be  differences in delivery vehicles, the vehicle does not change the tomatoes.  Likewise, while social media tools like Twitter and Facebook can expand the communication reach of a nonprofit agency and online donations might improve administrative efficiency but  cultivating audiences and helping them become supporters of an agency requires the application of relationship-building principles that have been employed for decades.  Likewise successful online advocacy employs the same principles of community organizing that has always been the foundation advocacy.

.

Choose Any Two:  The third facilitation principle is to consider the concepts of “fast, cheap, done” correctly process.  There is the old software development saying (at least that is where I first heard it) that goes “fast, cheap, done correctly, choose any two.”  The principle, while a bit snarky sounding has much face validity.  If the anchor is “done correctly” then an organizations investment of resources in technology is proportional to  time.  By implication, the faster you want the change to happen more resources (money & staffing) will need to be invested in the project.

.

Trend Watching is Imprtant:  The fourth facilitation principle is to ensure that someone involved in your planning process is a “trend watcher” Technology is rapidly proliferating and for nonprofits with limited budgets it is important to consider the larger trends that shape nonprofit use of technology.  A few good resources for trend watching in the nonprofit world include Tech Soup (external link), Groundwire (external link), and the Pew Internet & American Life Project (external link).  As you move into planning, it will be important for your team to consider the trends that will most likely influence your community and stakeholders.  So for example, an agency with a mix of activist volunteers and donors might assess the salient trends as early technology adoption, open-source orientation, participatory use of technology, and heavy social media use. The trends among your clients and supporters should shape your technology platforms for outreach.  Internally,  trends of “cloud computing” or outsourcing back offices functions may also influence your operational technology decisions.

.

With these four principles a team is prepared to facilitate a technology planning process. Whether it is the development of a social media strategy to augment community outreach or whether it is considering moving from an in-house technology network to “cloud-based” network, the facilitation becomes a four step process.

.

1.  Get clear about the why:  As suggested earlier, the discussion of what you are trying to accomplish is the first and foremost consideration of technology planning.  Having clear goals and objectives are important to define the technology context.

.

2.  Inventory what your currently have:  With clear goals and objectives, the next step in the facilitation process is to inventory the what and how of your reality today.  If social media is the strategy being considered to increase your community of supporters, consider how are you currently reaching out to your supporters?  What technology platforms are you currently using to grow and manage your community of supporters?  What additional functionality do you need to help you grow your community?

.

3.  Build a picture of the gap and evaluate the alternatives:  As a performance improvement process, the next step to to place your goals and objectives on one side of the dry erase board or wall space and the existing inventory on the opposite.  The space between your inventory of “where you are now” and the goals and objectives of “where you want to be” is the gap that you are seeking to fill.  In the white space in between the team then needs to explore alternative strategies to close the gap.  Exploring alternatives requires some homework and likely more than one meeting.  So, for example, if a team is looking to use technology to increase connection with potential donors, alternative strategies might include publishing an enewsletter, building a social media community, hosting conference calls, or webinars, creating a dynamic content blog, or a combination of strategies.  Each strategy carries with it time, staffing and monetary costs that need to be weighed against the potential return and the mission fit.

.

4.  Create and Opportunity Matrix:  Once potential strategies are developed a team can then use an opportunity matrix to weigh the relative merits of the alternatives. While each team will create unique evaluation criteria to meet their needs, the general process is that a team needs to be able to compare alternatives and make decisions based on the resources and priorities of the agency.  In essence evaluating opportunities answers the questions of which alternative: 1) Is most feasible with your resources (time, money and talent)? and 2) Is most compatible with your mission, vision and values?  Your opportunity matrix should also include how the alternative compares against your trends.

.

5.  Create your Operational Plan:  Once you have explored opportunities, alternatives and decided on the alternative(s), the next phase of facilitation is to develop and implementation or operational plan.  Describing operational planning is beyond the scope of this post but a simple search on the internet can provide you with dozens of operational planning models and templates.  In the past I outlined in 3 posts to frame the workplan development process that can also be a useful starting place.

.

Following a facilitation process, a team can move from a universe of options through a thoughtful narrowing process to finally arrive at a strategic decision.  In my experience and practice, I have found that many nonprofit teams are nearly paralyzed by technology planning.  Often with weak (or completely absent) technology support, small to mid-sized nonprofits have reservations about investing in technology despite the potential organizational improvements that can result from such investments.  However, for those nonprofits that start with “function” and work backwards to technology through a thoughtful assessment of alternatives to realize the benefits that technology can bring to the agency operations and program management.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

The role of assessing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT ) in nonprofit strategic planning is often misunderstood and misused. At the most extreme a SWOT analysis is confused with the strategic planning process with an organization believing that a SWOT is the sum total of strategic planning. More common is that a team creates a SWOT matrix, (completing the four quadrants), and then are not sure what to do next or the team gets “stuck” processing results. Often the difficulty of processing a SWOT analysis arises around either a team a)  perseverating over the negative screens of weaknesses and threats or b) putting the SWOT variables in a matrix and then not being sure how to integrate the various “quadrants” of the matrix into a whole. In this post I want to outline a facilitation process designed to assist teams work through a SWOT analysis.

.

Acknowledge but don’t feed the Weaknesses and Threats: In my experience, one risk of a SWOT analysis is that a team that is processing weaknesses and threats can inadvertently pull the conversation down towards pessimism and defensiveness. The resulting strategies from such conversations can focus on “defending the gains” rather then “expanding opportunities.” One way to avoid “planning from deficits” is to rethink the framework. Elsewhere I have written about appreciative inquiry as a facilitation process and I have often used a related framework of Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results (SOAR) as an alternative to a SWOT. A good contrast between SWOT and SOAR can be found here – (external link).

.

However, if a team is committed to a SWOT analysis, it is critical that there is a shared understanding of the purpose in looking the variables, especially, the Weaknesses and Threats. The assessment of weaknesses is the chance to a team to identify and reflect on internal operations and capacity that are the “rate limiters” in moving forward. The assessment of threats is looking at the external environment that could negatively effect the organizations success. Often, the threatening forces that can impact and agency but might be beyond the control of the organization. Combined, the purpose of looking at weaknesses and threats is to give an organization a realistic understanding context in which they are operating. However, strategic plans should rarely be developed in relationship to weaknesses and threats.

.

My bias has been a source of many conversations with clients over the meaning and power of words. In suggesting that weaknesses and threats are not the foundation of strategy, I am not suggesting that an an organization deny the reality of either. Weaknesses and threats exist and need to be accommodated in the planning process, however, in the planning process, they equally  should not be “fed” by giving them inordinate power.  In the end, all strategy should reflect an understanding of the environment but be focused and be framed in the context of the opportunities ahead.

.

Collapse the Quadrants: It is my belief that a SWOT analysis is most useful to a team as a broad surveillance tool rather than a planning tool. A completed SWOT matrix allows a team to view the scope of possibilities. As weaknesses and threats are identified a team should then turn them upside-down. Weaknesses and threats are the flip side of opportunities and should be viewed as such. In other words, as a SWOT analysis is completed, the traditional four quadrants of the SWOT matrix should be collapsed into opportunities. If a team is clear on this point, then it will prevent them from getting lost in simply “defending gains” rather than engaging in strategic planning. Again, Strategic planning occurs when a team distills the SWOT data into opportunities. So, for example, the threat of “pending budget cuts” becomes the opportunity of thinking differently about revenue diversification or the opportunity to advocate for policy change around funding. A facilitator working with a team on a SWOT analysis should help the team move towards the opportunity quadrant. Again, the purpose if not to ignore weaknesses and threats but to help a team channel the potential and energy into creating aspirational strategies and goals.

.

Create Scenario Screens: A third way to assist a planning team move through a SWOT analysis is to help the team create “scenario screens.” In short a scenario screen acknowledges that the variables identified in a SWOT are not static and often only partially understood in the planning process. To help a team plan for the changing landscape (incompletely captured in a SWOT) a scenario screen creates a way to teams to measure opportunities in the context of the organizational mission and vision. Others have referred to the scenario screen process as an “opportunity matrix” or “strategy screen.”  A simple web search of any of these concepts will yield a number of relevant example of such tools.

.

A scenario screen is a way to evaluate and prioritize opportunities. Typically a scenario screen lists criteria that need to be met as an opportunity is assessed. For example, some potential criteria might be that the opportunity is a) compatible with the organizational mission, b) meets one or more strategic priority, c) has a reasonable timeframe, d) has acceptable costs, and e) there is capacity to execute. A scenario screen may also “rank” or “weigh” variables (such as low fit, medium fit, or high fit) to create a a more multidimensional assessment of the opportunity.

.

Again, while some conflate a SWOT exercise with strategic planning, it is important to recognize that a SWOT analysis is only one tool or exercise in the strategic planning process. However, when facilitating a SWOT exercise as part of the strategic planning process, it is useful to connect the three steps as a process. This facilitation process includes: 1) the broad study and recognition of the SWOT forces internal and external to the organization, 2) the narrower focusing of the conversation around the “unpacked” implicit and explicit strategies and opportunities that emerge from the SWOT, and 3) the creation of scenario screens that help the team manages the shifting dynamics of the SWOT variables, strategies, and opportunities over time.

.

I believe that strategic planning in the nonprofit setting does not lend itself to the direct application of corporate for-profit strategic planning models. Nonprofit business models are more complex than defending or advancing market share. A SWOT analysis for nonprofits run the twin dangers of either oversimplifying strategy or narrowing strategy into the four unnaturally parsed quadrants. To create a robust strategic plan, facilitating a nonprofit SWOT analysis needs to move beyond the four quadrants and provide an organization with a strategic understanding of the environment, its opportunities, and more importantly the tools to manage the opportunities of the environment over time. Facilitated well, a SWOT exercise can strengthens a nonprofit strategic planning process.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

Over the last few months, I have posted a series of articles on strategic planning for  nonprofit and social sector agencies. Not surprising, a number of potential client calls are from folks  looking for facilitation and process support for strategic planning.  Indeed in this anemic economy, many nonprofit agencies find themselves refocusing on strategy.  Many initial conversations with clients fall into one of three groups.  The  first group are those agencies who have been through strategic planning “dutifully” every 3-5 years as “every good nonprofit agency does” and now it that time when the planning cycle has looped around.  The second group are those agencies that have read one or more books on strategic planning or have participated in an onerous planing process and feel daunted by the process.  The third group are agencies who may have been severely impacted by the recent economic downturn and are truly looking for fresh ways to think about how to move forward. While all three groups may have different motivations and perspectives related to  strategic planning, all  share in common a desire to improve the social impact of their organizations.

.

Based on literally dozens of conversations with nonprofit leaders, I find that many organizations are looking for a simpler framework for strategic planning.  In this post, I want to outline a strategic planning process that is versatile enough to guide an organization or team as they seek to engage in the thoughtful work of strategy.   In summary, the framework that I most often follow, is the process of 1) establishing the critical social need, 2) creating a compelling vision of how your agency can create a positive social impact by addressing that social need, 3) developing a relevant organizational mission, 4) developing system’s focused program strategies, and 5) creating measures and  outcomes to guide the plan implementation.

.

Establishing the Critical Social Need:  Every nonprofit should exist only in response to an unmet critical social need.  Unlike the private sector where the market may support companies selling consumables that may have little value, no value, or even a negative value, the nonprofit sector can only afford to support organizations that are positively impacting compelling social needs.  As a result, strategic planning begins by defining the unmet social need.  Such a community needs assessment can be based on existing data, expert opinion, surveys, a systematic environmental scan, or ideally some combination of these data points.

.

Creating a Compelling Vision of Tomorrow:  I have written before about the relationship between vision & mission and critical social needs.  Within the nonprofit sector and the philanthropy community that supports the nonprofit sector, there is an increasing trend towards defining and working towards a compelling social impact.  The focus on social impact makes it  increasingly less tenable for agencies to simply run “good programs” without creating social change. In this context of strategic planning,agencies should ask themselves, “what is the better, more just, and equitable tomorrow we are tying to create?”  A vision, in essence is the BIG WHY that defines the reason for the existence of an organization.

.

Developing a Relevant Mission:  An agency’s mission statement should represent a the “tactical  orientation of the organization that is closer to the social need being addressed address.   The questions that get to the heart of an agency mission might include ones such as: What programs and services is our agency trying to excel at?  What qualities of culture and community are we seeking to create?  How do we want to be known in the community? If folks seek us out, what are they seeking us out for?  By creating a clear mission you are answering the fundamental questions of the “What and How”  of the agency.

.

Designing System’s Level Strategies:  In between your vision of tomorrow and the mission you declare today is the “white space” of programs and services.  Strategic plans are not intended to the entirely fill the white space by fully designing programs  but rather is the space where an organization declares its commitment to strategies designed to create its vision of tomorrow.   The strategy “challenge” is to think systematically and systemically about the opportunities to foster change at the individual, community, and policy level to create a synergistic effect that magnifies the benefits of each individual program. It is also important for an agency to develop capacity strategies that will grow the organization’s ability to create a larger social impact.  For many organizations that implement “programs” the shift to thinking about community impact and public policy can be an exciting process of discovering new potential.    Indeed, the creative energy of designing solutions to compelling social needs has the potential of giving renewed inspiration and aspiration to an organization.

.

Creating Performance and Outcome  Measures:  It is only worth the time and energy to create a strategic plan if an agency is willing to ensure that the document is living, breathing and is used as the organizational compass guiding and anchoring decisions.  Ideally, as program strategies are created, the organization also takes time to establish  corresponding performance and outcome measures.   Answering the question of how an agency will monitor progress toward the objectives should be integral to strategic planning.  Similar to developing program strategies, the purpose at this level is not to create the actual performance measurement system (i.e., dashboard or report card) but to establish the benchmarks that will help provide assurance that the agency activities will stay focused on the strategic design. Later you can fully develop programs and outcome measurement more precisely based on further study and design.

.

I purposefully presented in this post a simplified strategic planning process. Unfortunately, on more than one occasion, I have seen (and heard from frustrated potential clients) how an overly complex process of strategic planning gets in the way of successful strategic planning.  Too often the textbook approach to strategic planning is cumbersome and emphasizes precise sequential steps, prescribed analysis measures (i.e., SWOT), meaningless revenue projection exercises and other artificial exercises that constrain thinking.

.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that strategic planning is a process that requires intentionality, reflection and analysis –none of which are easy. However, I am a firm believe that social sector strategic planning requires a simpler more aspirational framework as represented by the five slightly imprecise and  iterative steps identified above.  Unlike a standardized corporate strategic planning approach Nonprofit and social sector agencies requires a social impact planning model that can dynamically address a wide range of social needs and accommodate a variety of organizational cultures.

.

A strategic plan that reflects the process from need to to vision and offers specific strategies and measures to guide implementation, will establish a framework to help an agency achieve success.  To be useful in creating such a strategic plan, a facilitator needs to, as Simon Sinek (external link), so clearly articulates create a compelling why, a disciplined how and a consistent what.  Applied to a strategic planning framework it suggests that a simplified approach to strategic planning coupled with a systemic facilitation process can assist nonprofit agencies to improve the social impact of their organizations.

.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

.

I have been using Twitter in my practice for about six months now.  My account @facilitationpro is primarily a place where I promote and cultivate the practice of information scanning and knowledge management. To stay current in the fields of performance improvement, nonprofit management and trends in philanthropy, I scan numerous websites and other online resources and as I encounter useful tools and documents, I post them  as “resources of the day.”  I also use the tool to keep abreast of the local nonprofit community (at least those using Twitter).  As virtually everyone knows by now, Twitter (and similar services) are communication platforms that limit messages to 140 characters. Of course, in trying to micro-abbreviate words, there is a hazard that the meaning of the message can be obscured or even lost entirely. However, done correctly, measuring communication to 140 characters forces one to parse down words to simplicity and clarity.   The transference of this concept to facilitation is important.  Indeed, next to creating movement, simplicity and clarity are the co-equal meta-competencies of facilitation.  While I have written before about core competencies of facilitation, I thought it might be useful to discuss the concepts of clarity and simplicity as a facilitation skill.

.

In thinking about this topic, I was reminded of a time when I was called in following one of a series of meetings being conducted by a board/staff subcommittee of a mid-sized nonprofit organization.  The team had been meeting intensely for several weeks trying to create a board proposal.  I was asked, as a favor, to come in to a meeting to help assess and troubleshoot the development process of the board proposal.  The words of a frustrated staffer were something like, “The document has gone back-and-forth and round-and-round so many times that I think we are completely lost.”  Given that the team spent little time creating a facilitation process for the proposal development, such an outcome could have been predicted.  During this meeting, I spent a good hour asking simple, open-ended questions and listening a lot.  As I jotted down notes (in categories) it became clear that there was an underlying framework that the team had been developing but failed to name it and bring it to the surface.  As I sketched the framework and labeled the “moving parts” it was easily to see the layers of confusion being peeled away.  While the end of the meeting did not clarify everything, it did set the team in the right direction and when I was looped back into the conversation a while later, the proposal had much more clarity and simplicity.  So what are the principles of clarity and simplicity?

.

Think about the System: Simplicity and clarity happen when a team can identify the system operating around the content at hand.  The team, referenced above, were intently focused on the concepts and words of the proposal before them.  By helping the group to step back and identifying the system, I, as the facilitator, was able to help the team rediscover not only the system but also the central core of that system.  This central core was critical because it served as the organizing “gravitational pull” of the proposal, around which all of the other pieces of the proposal orbited. In this way, the core of the system held the proposal in place and became the unifying, simple, and clear theme.

.

Cut Twice then Measure Once. A second principle in finding clarity and simplicity is to take the Twitter model of 140 characters, cut it in half and then in half again. Then fit the concept to that micro space.  Going back to my illustration above, I spent most of my time with the team in listening mode.  As I listened I strained to hear the recurring words that became category headers. When words like leverage, impact, and scale became the most relevant “35 characters” of the conversation, the gravitational center became a clearer discussion of social impact.

.

Think Visually: Clarity and simplicity can also come by changing the medium.  When three of four pages of dense text create complexity, it is helpful to abandon words and think visually.  Elsewhere I have written in more detail about the use of visuals in facilitation and here it is suffice to say that when used well, tools like concept mapping, metaphors and even visual sorting exercises can all help be powerful simplifiers.  Note the emphasis on “used well” as I have seen more than once, visual tools be used as magnifiers of complexity. Visual thinking should be about simplicity and clarity.

.

Think Like a Designer:  While facilitators do not need to be pretend “graphic designers” it is helpful for the facilitator to explore concepts of design and design thinking as an adjunctive tool in the clarity and simplicity process.  Concepts like alignment; proximity; contrast; and white space can all be used to help move a process from complexity to simplicity.  Coming back to the nonprofit presenting their board proposal, the challenge was that the final proposal remained four pages in length and the team needed the consent of the board to move forward.  As a result, the board presentation had to become graphic, emphasizing powerful words, visuals and story to serve as a translation of the document.

.

As I premised at the outset, clarity and simplicity are meta-facilitation skills that are not optional to a facilitation process.  A facilitator needs to have in his or her toolbox a range methods to help group get to the core of clarity and simplicity.  Gone are the days when agencies could use complex schematics and service delivery models to explain business operations.  The task of organizations seeking to improve performance and accelerate growth is to reduce the “noise” in order to create clarity and simplicity.  The task of facilitation is to create a process that brings clarity and simplicity to help organizations achieve success.

.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

.

Recently, I have been working on several different projects that involve nonprofit board development issues ranging from staffing a board, to recruiting board members, and improving the effectiveness of boards.  My recent work has led me to filter my experience through a review of the literature on the characteristics of an effective boards and  strengthening  nonprofit board performance.  So this post is one more installment of my occasional series on nonprofit board development.

.

As I have written previously, a functional board is comprised of members capable of serving four functions that include 1) governance, 2) capacity support, 3) content expertise, and 4) resource development.  This is a critical framework to understand as it serves as the foundation of a functional board. However, a high performing board requires a different level of operating. High performing boards are based on “the highest and best use” of the talents and skills of board members.  Most nonprofit organizations seek to recruit board members who are talented individuals who are often business leaders, critical thinkers, and community activists. Unfortunately, more often than we would like to admit, the use of such  talented board members is limited to review of policies and procedures, looking over budget reports for accuracy and assisting in fundraising events. While such board activities might define some of the duties of a functional board, a high performing board is defined by engagement in ongoing strategic thinking and strategic action. Reviewing meeting minutes, agency financial reports, and blessing changes in HR policy are necessary duties of a Board but if the balance of board meetings is consumed with such pedestrian administrative tasks, then the “highest and best use of board talent “is likely missed.

.

A classic Harvard Business Review article published over a decade ago, suggests that high functioning boards, discover, focus and organize around “what matters” (External Link).  According to this article, what matters is “harnessing the collective efforts of accomplished individuals to advance the institution’s mission and long-term welfare.”  It goes on further to suggest that the board’s contribution is meant to be strategic, “the joint product of talented people brought together to apply their knowledge and expertise to the major challenges (and I would add, opportunities) facing the institution.”  So, if this is the description of a high performing board, what does it take to create such a board?  From my experience and a review of the literature, I would suggest five starting points.

.

Assess where you are and define where you want to be.  The first task of developing a high performing board is to figure out where are the gaps in performance.  A Google Search will unearth several board self-assessment tools that range from overly simplistic to overly complicated. Such tools might be useful to help a board think about its governance functions, member commitments, or help identify “holes” in a board’s operating structure.  Such a self-assessment can be a good place to benchmark the strengths of your board operation but many of these assessments do not have a strong strategic intent.  An alternative assessment would be to benchmark practices against the variables presented in the Grant Thornton 2009 National Board Governance Survey for Not-for-Profit Organizations (External Link).  In my opinion, this survey offers a timely and more strategic perspective on board operations. A third approach to assessment is to shift away from a narrow assessment of the board and conduct a larger capacity assessment.  I have written elsewhere about capacity assessments and in that article I linked to a useful assessment spreadsheet (External Link).  A capacity assessment would help the board not only reflect in its strengths and opportunities but would also be useful in discovering the “what matters.”  Whichever route you take, knowing where the board is now will help identify the performance gap related to where you want to be.

.

Build the Board’s Skills:  I have argued before that board development starts at a board orientation but continues as an ongoing process of raising the skills and competencies of board members.  The reality is that board members become effective as they engage their heads, hearts and hands in the work of the organization.  To me, this calls for a meaningful development agenda that includes a) ongoing board training on topics related to governance and strategy, b) opportunities for boards to get their “hands dirty” in the work of the organization, and c) learning about the larger service context in which the nonprofit agency works.  Building board skills is a strategic and long-term process that is not segregated into an annual or semi-annual training event.  Ideally, participating in a strategic agenda for board skills building should be built into board practices and be built into the expectations of board service.

.

Engage Strategically:  A simple yet useful exercise to help gauge the strategy of a board is to do a quick content analysis of two sources.  First, examine the pre-meeting packets sent out to board members for the last three or four months and sort the contents into the two piles of administrative and strategic.  Second, review the meeting minutes for the same time period and highlight everything that is strategic in yellow.  The balance of the piles and the presence or absence of yellow highlights will give a board a good indication of how much of the board’s time is spent in administrative review and how much of the time is spent engaged in strategy.  The second part of the exercise is to ask the question, how much of the historic content was actually dependent upon face to face meeting?  For example, could board members review and approve fiscal statements and other administrative approvals after a simple review of emailed documents?  The answer is likely to be yes.  I am not suggesting that boards should conduct business by email rather I wanted to create a perspective of time.  If board members can read and approve by reviewing email attachments, then the time allotted at board meetings should be proportional. Simple administrative review should be done in advance of meetings and, when there are no concerns about the subject matter, such tasks should take relatively little time at a board meeting. Unfortunately, too many boards are conditioned to process the nuances of organizational administration, mistaking such administrative processing for strategy.  Board meetings need to be oriented around strategy and board members engaged in the work of solving big challenges of the agency and thinking strategically two and three years out.   Performance of boards would improve dramatically if administrative review were limited to a tightly narrated quarter or a third of a total board meeting time.

.

Measure Performance:  Another starting point for improving board effectiveness is to measure performance.  Too often a board will measure the performance of the agency and neglect measuring their own performance. At best, many boards’ self-performance evaluation is limited to evaluating the start and end time of meetings or the quality of the takeout food served at the event.  High performing boards create meaningful measures of board performance. While it might be tempting to measure performance by attendance, percent of board members donating to the agency, and the on-time completion of the executive director performance evaluation, these are fairly un-strategic measures. Strategic measures go further and might track such benchmarks as the regularity and content of executive or planning sessions, engagement of members outside of board meetings, or the percent of meeting time spent in strategy versus administration. Additional measures might be tracking the time required to recruit skilled board members or membership retention.  For many boards shifting to performance-based board management can represent a sea change in culture and is likely only achieved after carefully facilitated strategic conversations and thoughtful planning.

.

Get the Right People on Board:  A final starting point is to conduct a thoughtful review of board recruitment strategies.  Does the agency have clear board member job descriptions?  Are members sought out individually for skills and expertise? Do board members invest time in cultivating potential board members?  Many small to midsized nonprofit agency have difficulty staffing their boards let alone staffing their boards with highly qualified community leaders.  Having worked with many such boards, I will not underestimate the challenge of this task.  However, establishing a clear recruitment strategy and creating a meaningful board structure with the expectations of continual learning, performance-measurement, and strategic engagement will become reinforcing cycle that raises expectations and organizational optimism.   Energy and engagement creates energy and engagement.

.

Developing a high performing board is not a trivial task.  Indeed, I would contend that for many agencies, creating a high performing board may an intentional process that spans a year or more. However, despite the challenges of reinventing a board, facilitating a process to develop a high performing board is critical as nonprofits seek to thrive in the continuing economic uncertainty and instability.  High performing organizations of  tomorrow are those that develop and maintain high performing boards today.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

In my consulting I have made it a practice to discuss with clients my philosophical approach and the foundational theories that I use to in facilitation.  I find this is often time well spent because it helps to create a shared space for our working relationship. One “shared space” discussion that is important to have with clients is whether the facilitation process is problem-based or solution-based.  In general, I approach performance consulting and facilitation from a solution perspective.    In practice, what that means is that the amount of time needed to define the current situation is way less important than the time spent thinking and acting in the direction of where a client wants to be.  So as a proportion of the overall consulting process, I believe that the time spent in problem identification should be no more than the time required to develop a clear and succinct assessment of the point from which the group or team is starting.  How the group or team got to the starting point rarely matters.  What does matter in the facilitation process is that a group or team is at point A and wants to move forward to point B and a focus on solutions moves the group forward and not backwards.  In this post, I wanted to outline five principles of a solution-focused facilitation process.

.

Start with the solution:  The first step in solution-focused process is, intuitively, to start by defining the solution or range of solutions that need to be considered.  In essence, the solution is the goal that goes far enough upstream to create the performance improvement or change that matters.  For an extensive exploration of a solutions, this step could require a sophisticated process like scenario planning or conversely, it could be as simple as structuring a sequence of inquiry questions. From an appreciative inquiry approach, solutions might be “three wishes” or aspirations of a team and from a performance improvement perspective, the solutions would answer the question of what is the “optimal performance.” Whatever process is used, the point is that when you start from the solution perspective, the group is less likely to get bogged down trying to reverse engineer why the problem exists (a backwards focus)  and instead the group moves forward –and remember that facilitation is first and foremost about forward movement.

.

Create objectives that move you towards the solution:  Once the solution is identified the next step is to identify interim objectives that tell you that you are moving towards the solution. Elsewhere I have written about goals and objectives and in this context it suffices to say that objectives become the  mile-markers that help you know that you are moving towards the solution.

.

Build upon existing practice and experience: The next step in the solution process is to create a shared understanding of how progress is already being made towards the solution. All groups have existing practices and skills that support solutions.  Occasionally, however, I have encountered groups that practice a “collective amnesia” about their practices and experiences.  In these cases, it is important to prompt the group and draw out their existing practices and experiences that support the achievement of the solution.  Simply asking the question, “what is happening within this team and organization that supports the solution?” can change a facilitation process by getting folks to think about their strengths.

.

Resource the Solution:  The fourth step in facilitating from a solution perspective is to spend time developing a resource plan to make sure that the solution can be achieved.  For example, if performance improvement is the solution, then the resources required to help create the performance improvement might include such things as job design, organizational development, staff development, or program support. As with any journey towards a new destination, a team needs both a plan and the resources to carry to plan forward.

.

Document and Monitor the Plan: The fifth step in a solution process is to document and monitor the plan.  While I have written elsewhere about creating workplans and monitoring the progress towards achieving the plan, it never hurts to reinforce the point that that teams and organizations need clear expectations and a roadmap for success.  Further, teams need to be able to network with each other, have access to coaching and mentoring along the way, and have mechanisms for accountability if new solutions are to be achieved.

.

As I reflect on this five-point outline, I think it reads a bit like a “Mechanix Illustrated” for facilitators.  But underneath this step-by-step approach is an underlying philosophy that needs to be attended to.  Often time, facilitators enter an agency as an outside “expert” with a toolbox (or worse –a magician’s hat) to solve the client’s “problems.”  This mechanic’s approach basically says “I can come into your agency and fix your problem in five steps.” Unfortunately, such a facilitation approach is all too common and in the hands of such a mechanic, a solution-focused approach is just a tool.  In reality, solution-focused facilitation is more than a tool and is really about pedagogy.  True solution-focused facilitation is born out of empowerment education and constructivism with both of these foundations asserting that the facilitator is a co-equal learner. Far from a mechanic’s “expert approach”, solution-focused facilitation is about co-creation. So, coming back to the opening line of this post, I want to underscore  that philosophy matters and the facilitator and client need to create a shared space around philosophy.

.

I carry around in my head many truisms from the radical, innovator and philosopher Henry David Thoreau and one statement he penned is, “though I do not believe that a plant will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a seed.  Convince me that you have a seed in there, and I am prepared to expect wonders.” To me, this is the heart and soul of solution-focused facilitation.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

.

In my last post I asserted that the nonprofit organizations of tomorrow are being born out of the economic crisis of today.  In this current economic turmoil, there are many voices counseling the nonprofit world to increase “collaboration.” Unfortunately, many of these experts are using “collaboration” as euphemism for “merger and acquisition.”  However, unlike the opinions of these non-prophets (pun intended), I believe that the organizational tempering is less about “merger and acquisition” and more about vision, leadership, agility and innovation.  As a new operational model, authentic collaboration  needs to be grounded in sovereignty, aspiration, innovation and brought to life as a concrete operating strategy.  In this post, I wanted to outline what I consider to be the provocative questions that nonprofits (and nonprofit boards) need to consider before pursuing formal collaborations with other agencies.

.

What are we trying to achieve through collaboration?  A first question that informs a discussion of collaboration is the fundamental question of outcome.  The expert perspective that “there are too many nonprofits,” may suffice as an efficiency justification for encouraging collaboration but for the individual agency struggling with the question of collaboration, efficiency is but one variable.  A nonprofit must clearly identify the drivers of collaboration.  The heart of the question is twofold.  First is a consideration of where an agency wants to be compared to where it is now.  In other words, what is the performance gap that needs to be closed?  The second question asks if collaboration is among the best ways to close the gap (systems-thinking knows that there is usually more than one “best way”).

.

I would like to suggest that the question of outcome requires an agency to explore three dimensions of organization practice including its: Operating, Resource, and Social Impact models.  In the resources listed below,  I link to a couple of business planning documents that all discuss these three dimensions of practice.  Such and exploration ideally includes both inquiry and reflection.

.

Resource Model: The current economic crisis sets up the  false dichotomy of a “merge or die” line of thinking.  “Our budget is shrinking, should we merge?” is one way to approach the question.  However, implicit in this approach is a scarcity mentality –namely, that there isn’t enough money to go around.  Illustrating this, I was recently talking to a colleague who made the blanket statement that he would “not encourage any agency to launch ambitious new plans in this economy.”  Scarcity thinking is one way to approach the resource model conversation but such an approach often misses larger conversations.  For example, I know an organization with heavy revenue concentration from stable long-term government grants.  It is also an agency that has a large number of volunteers, whom have never been asked for donations.  In the context of three straight years of government budget cuts, the stability of the organization was incrementally being threatened.  By revisiting the resource model of the agency, the decision was made to a build new revenue stream based on small individual donations. Two years into the plan the organization is on track to reinvent its resource development model.

.

Operating Model: A second inquiry and reflection exercise is to consider an organization’s operating model.  Are services delivered effectively?  Can the system of operations be reconceived?  Such a conversation does not question the program strategy of an agency but looks for operating efficiencies. Conversations might focus, for example, on the value of collaboration to create “back office” efficiencies or the value of sharing space.

.

Social Impact Model: the third conversation that informs the question of “what do we want to achieve?” is the conversation of social impact.  Here a group examines the heart of the organization through the lens of impact.  I can think of more than one nonprofit agency that has reinvented its programs and services to create a larger impact (or the same impact more efficiently).  Here is the greatest need for inquiry and reflection and, in my opinion, it is from this dimension of organizational practice where the best collaborative decisions are made.

.

What are the models of collaboration?  Following inquiry and reflection, an agency needs to explore the various models of collaboration (and inherent philosophies of each).  In another post,  I identified five models of collaboration that serve as a good working outline of models.  (In the resources section below I reference a study documenting eight models). Too often groups think in polar opposites.  Merge and “go it alone” are simply two points on a scale of collaboration.  A thoughtful discussion of other collaborative models will help in articulating a collaboration strategy.

.

What is the due diligence process associated with our collaboration? A third component of the strategic conversation around collaboration is to create a roadmap for exploring a specific collaboration model.  Making process a part of the initial conversation can help an organization get a clear picture of the scope of work, timeline and resources required to support the development of collaborative partnerships.  As with most organizational change efforts, developing collaborative relationships is subject to the old adage of: “fast, cheap, done correctly –chose any two.”   Collaboration, done correctly, takes dedicated resources of time and money and generally the faster you want it to happen the larger the costs.

.

What does the collaboration process look like?  The final component of the collaboration conversation is to be visually clear about what the entire collaboration process looks like.    I have also written before about describing process from the perspective of visual learning.  In mapping out a process of collaboration, creating a visual understanding can assist an organization build a shared image of the change ahead. However, even if an organization chooses not to visually represent the plan, there needs to be a written workplan developed with clear milestones and markers of success along the way.

.

Collaboration exists on many levels in organizations.  As this post is a  follow up to my last post, it is important to recognize that I am referencing collaboration that can fundamentally change the fabric of an organization.  Change that can lead to sharing space, affiliation or even merger is a deep process and is not the equivalent of collaborating with other agencies on a community event.  Embarking on the process of inter-agency collaboration is a major undertaking for any organization and carries with it the weight of seismic organizational change.  Facilitating collaboration requires more than simply running a good meeting and requires the thoughtful attention to inquiry, reflection, and process.

.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

.

Resources:

The Process of Social Entrepreneurship: creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit

Business Planning for Enduring Social Impact

Models of Collaboration Nonprofit Organizations Working Together

.

When convening a group, two of the primary tasks of a facilitator are to clearly articulate the label that is applied to the group and to create an appropriate social contract between group members.  The terms “workgroup,” “taskforce,” “coalition” and “advisory group” are labels that are often used loosely and sometimes even used interchangeably. However, each of these labels carries a very different meaning and more importantly a different implied social contract.  My experience (both as a group participant and a facilitator) is that when a group of people are convened as an “advisory group” the front-end work around developing a social contract becomes critical.

.

Perhaps there are more sophisticated definitions for an advisory group but in general, as the name implies, an advisory group is a collective of participants who are invited because of expertise, representation of constituents, connections, and/or position for the purpose of helping to inform representative decisions.  In their highest use, advisory groups are convened because the increasing complexity of social problems demands broad critical thinking.  In their lowest use, advisory groups are convened to create the illusion of participation and provide political coverage for decisions that need to be made.  In between these two points on the continuum there are likely a number of different points of functioning for advisory groups.  One can readily see that, wherever an advisory group falls on the continuum, the success of the group will be dependent upon the clarity, expectations and social contract negotiated with the group.

.

Groups convene, partnerships are formed, and collaboration occurs largely because there is a compelling need that transcends the abilities of an individual or single organization.  Adapting from an excellent resource on evaluating collaboratives (see resources below), I would suggest that collaboration occurs in the social sector because: 1) social problems are complex, 2) there are intensive resource pressures, 3) the social net continues to fragment, 4) communities don’t respond well to endemic problems, and 5) change is pervasive, rapid and sweeping.  Implicit in these magnetic forces is the need to network and create shared solutions.

.

While I have written before that there is a compelling shift towards collaboration and networking, I believe that  there remain organizational challenges and barriers to collaboration.  The polar opposites that make collaboration difficult are such issues as 1) cultures of organizational superiority, 2) single-issue myopia, 3) differing mandates and procedures, and 4) competing/adversary relationships (especially around resources).

.

In this context, when an advisory group is convened, there is an unspoken orientation towards action and, at times, the internal undercurrent of the barriers that initially undermines trust in the process.  This mix of expectations and barriers is the driving reason to create a social contract for participation. So what does a social contract for an advisory group look like?

.

Explicit Definition of Advisory:  First and foremost, a facilitator needs to help the parties define the “advisory purpose” of the group.  If there is a “disconnect” between the perceived role of the participants and the intention of the convener, the group progress will be hindered because of the conflicting expectations.  The facilitator needs to ensure that everyone is in agreement to what “advisory” means for the group process. Inherent in this definition is the concept of authority.  In other words, the group needs to be clear what authority is connected with the advice.  For example, if a government agency brings together an advisory group to help prioritize pressing community issues for funding, the participants need to be clear if their advice (in terms of prioritizing) has a direct link to decisions made about funding or if the advisory authority is limited and other constraints could possibly trump their recommendations. Failure to make this expectation clear has the potential to undermine the entire advisory process.

.

Consideration of Transaction:  A second component of the social contract relates to the transactional or relational nature of the advisory group.  With limited resources, especially time, the convening of an advisory group needs to bring some benefit to the participants other than the potential of free coffee and pasties at the meeting.  This is especially true if the group authority is limited by external constraints.  Profile, status and relationships are often implicit (but not often explicit) transactions that can support an advisory function. However, following authority to influence direction, the transaction that is important to advisory group participation is bringing the “voice” of the community to the process.  Indeed, as the voice of the community is amplified by the collective participation of group members become a community organizing effort even if authority is lacking.  Advisory group participation builds relationships and can be the foundation for future action.

.

Process Support:  A third characteristic of a social contract for advisory groups is to ensure the process is supported and resourced.  The facilitation of the group must include the supporting structure that is the basis for any meeting facilitation (clear agendas, decision-making process, and minutes).  Additional support includes clear communication during and between meetings and a clear beginning and end point with movement markers in between.

.

Participant Expectations:  Finally the social contract must define participant expectations.  For an advisory group to be successful expectations that are important include: 1) being honest and open, 2) making contributions to the process, 3) focusing on issues and content, and 4) being a provocateur when needed. In addition, standard meeting ground rules such as respecting others, being on time and following through on agreements and action items need to be in place.

.

While not essential, the most successful advisory groups I have participated in, codify the social contract in a brief operating procedure.  In the resources below, I link to a handbook for community advisory groups that was developed to guide EPA advisory groups.  While very jargon laden, the document has some sample documents that can serve as models for advisory groups seeking to create a written social contract.

.

The point that I am trying to make is that unique group structures require unique facilitation approaches.  While coalitions derive power from collective action, advisory groups primarily inform and influence the actions of others.  This is not to judge the importance of one structure over the other but simply points to the unique facilitation needs of advisory groups. It is my belief that advisory groups are a critical component of the civic engagement process and their success is dependent upon the clarity of process and expectations.  Social sector organizations need collective wisdom and advisory groups are one pathway to that wisdom. Skilled facilitation that pays attention to the labels and social contract can help such groups succeed.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

Resources

.

Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B., & Geran, J. (1998). Evaluating Collaboratives. Reaching the Potential. Madison: University of Wisconsin-System Board of Regents and University Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension (190 pages pdf).

.

Community Advisory Group (CAG) Handbook Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency

.

I have been working on a business-planning project for a client.  As part of the front-end assessment I have been doing a series of in-person and telephone interviews.  The interview structure includes inward conversations with key staff, board members, and volunteers involved with the agency, interviewing the “second circle” of local key stakeholders, and finally, interviewing other organizations nationally that have similar organizational missions. Having just hung up the phone from a 40 minute conversation with a program director in Chicago I am reminded again if the importance of inquiry in the facilitation process.

.

Inquiry as a facilitation skill is more than asking questions and is an engagement process of discovery.  Asking questions is about interrogation while inquiry is the process used to build understanding.  In my worldview, questions are one dimensional and concerned with answers. Conversely, inquiry is three-dimensional, seeking to 1) discover information, 2) create movement towards aspiration, and 3) fostering relationships. As inquiry is an important facilitation skill, it might be useful to consider a few principles of inquiry.

.

Between Information and Decisions are Reflection and Interpretation:  One of the frameworks that influenced my thinking about inquiry was developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (see resources below) and is represented in the concept of “focused conversation.”  The focused conversation model suggests moving from information to decisions by making room for reflection and interpretation.  I have written previously about reflection as a facilitation skill and, in short, I believe that reflection is engaging the personal thoughts, feelings, and frames of reference of those being interviewed.  Interpretation furthers the process by seeking meaning and reference.  Bringing reflection and interpretation into inquiry allows for the humanization of information.

.

Framing Aspirations: A second facet of the inquiry process is drawn from the practice of appreciative inquiry.  One of the fundamental premises of the appreciative inquiry approach is that individuals and groups move in the direction of the questions asked. In other words, if an inquiry is based on a traditional Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) approach, then there is a 50-50 change that the conversation will move in the direction of the weaknesses and threats.  Appreciative inquiry intentionally keeps the focus of questions on positive experiences, aspirational images of the future, and the compelling actions for organizations and communities that move towards transformation. In this way participants are guided through a strengths-based approach to planning.

.

Dismantling the “Because” Framing aspirations in the inquiry process is not to suggest that inquiry ignores critical uncertainties and barriers but inquiry should always be aware of the “because.”  “Because” often truncates inquiry by creating an impediment to further exploration. So when confronted with “because that approach has failed in the past” or “because the current political environment won’t support that idea,” an inquiry approach dismantles the “because” by going around the “because” barrier.  “Okay, if the current political environment is a barrier, where do you see the levers of change that can change the political environment and how does that influence our next steps?”

.

Remember the Goal is Understanding:  Finally, for the process of inquiry to be successful, a facilitator needs to remember that the goal in not information but understanding.  Going back to my current work on a business plan, the purpose of my interviews is to discover where the opportunities are, where information converges and diverges and where the positive core of energy is among those responsible for the growth of the organization.  This inquiry process is the first stage of understanding.  Questions alone reveal information.  A process of inquiry brings information to life.

.

In my experience, the least helpful facilitation is when a facilitator continually asks individuals and groups generic questions like “what do you think” or “tell me what you think should happen next?  Inquiry moves beyond generic questions.  Inquiry is a process that requires forethought, sequence and intentionality.  Questions may provide answers but inquiry provides meaning, relationships and energy.  It is kind of higher order thinking that needs to be at the core of the facilitation process.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

Resources:

The Art of the Focused Conversation

Appreciative Inquiry

.

I recently helped out on a board member orientation workshop  for a nonprofit agency and thought I would share some perspectives on nonprofit board development while the ideas are fairly fresh on my mind.  Over the last few months I have been occasionally posting what has become an informal series on board development (see other posts).

.

Volunteer-based nonprofit boards are typically comprised of diverse representatives from the community who want  to make a contribution to a cause-based organization.  In smaller to mid-sized organizations it  likely that many new board members have not served on a board previously and often have a vague idea of what being a board member means.   In this context, a board orientation is an important “educational” event. Unfortunately, in zeal to adequately train board members, board  orientation sessions can spiral downwards into a mountain of data and presentation slides.  I have personal experience in such a “missed opportunity ” when I once was captive in a board orientation where the trainer actually powered through over eighty slides in an hour.  My butt was numb and my mind even numb-er and needless to say I learned very little  from the session.  So if massive quantity of slides makes a poor board orientation,   how does one facilitate a board orientation that is not a death march through random slide transitions on an overhead screen?  Here are three fundamental principles:

.

Spend no more than 12-14 “pages” on Board Governance.  Oregon, like many states produces a Guide to Nonprofit Board Service with the entire document spanning only 16 pages (including covers, front matter and a huge amount of white space).  If the State Attorney General’s Office thinks that the concept of governance can be distilled down 12-14 pages of content, then that becomes a good guide for most nonprofit boards. As a general rule, new board members can get the concepts of “duty” and “control” in ten-fifteen minutes of discussion, without having to explain Federal Circulars governing contract management.  Of course, my assumption is that we are talking about a stable nonprofit with a track record of good management practice, fiscal and program controls, and supporting policies and procedures.  Boards governing an agency in transition are another story.

.

Foster the sense that board members are vital connectors.  A Board orientation needs to emphasize the board members role as a connector. One of the few slides that I have used in board orientation workshops, places the board in between the organization and the community.  The theoretical discussion is simple.  The board has an internal role connecting to the agency mission, vision, staff members and CEO and is responsible for stewarding those connections.  Externally, the board connects to the clients, community and contributors, outwardly representing the agency to these three groups and connecting the interests and needs of the external groups back to the organization. At the recent orientation I attended, one of the practical exercises in making internal connections paired board members in groups of 2 and 3 and had them meet in a roundtable format with staff of the agency who represented the different organizational programs and services.  In an hour’s time, board members connected with each program of the agency and, more importantly, with the agency staff members. Board members reported making vital connections and understanding and praised the short, intense dialogue approach as more meaningful than slide presentations of the same material.

.

Provide connection to each other.  Another facet of board orientation is to outline the concept of networked governance. I have discussed this concept in another post and increasingly I am convinced that successful boards are those that approach governance as a network.  Fundamental to a network is the concept that relationships matter.  Another node in which board members serve as a connector is in their relationships with each other.  Orientation must provide time for board members to connect less formally.

.

Orientation is Process. Finally remember that, as with everything based on performance, the orientation of new board members is not an event but a process.  An intentional time set aside for orientation is a way to start embedding concepts into heads (by detailing program data), engaging hearts (connecting board member with passion and mission), and putting tools in hands (reference materials, by-laws, operating procedures).  That’s orientation. The hard work of building relationships, creating meaningful impact and engaging a high performing board is the ongoing work of board development.  This development requires the ongoing facilitation process that cycles and deepens as boards govern in partnership with the CEO, staff, and community.

.

Anyone can download some board orientation slides off of the web and present a training workshop.  However, bringing facilitation process into a board orientation shifts the framework from training to learning and this deeper pursuit will strengthen the board. Facilitating a nonprofit board is a journey of empowerment and the first steps along the road to success can be found in the strong grounding of the board orientation.

.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

.

References

Creating High Impact Nonprofits

Board Governance as Leadership Summary

.