• Multiyear Funding: When the strategic plan is finished does it outline a clear pathway for developing an integrated approach to multiyear funding that provides stability to the organizations programs and infrastructure?

• Capacity Building: When the plan is implemented will the capacity of the agency be strengthened?  Have we considered the operational systems and support required to ensure a healthy and growing organization?

• Risk Taking: Does the plan lead us outside of a business as usual scenario in ways that challenge us to excel? Is the plan bold enough to encourage the agency take calculated (yet protected) risks to increase the impact of our programs and services?

• Movement Building: Programs and services change lives while movements change communities.  Does our strategic plan reflect movement building that has the potential of leveraging change at the community level?

• Making a Difference: Does our plan outline a pathway to demonstrate a clear and compelling impact? Will we be able to answer the question, “do we make a difference?”

Again, the list of “meta ideals” might differ from organization to organization but the common thread is that they are anchored to the core organizational values and aspirations. These ideals answer the question, “What do we as an agency want to become?” While the mission of today may be clear, the ideals drive the focus of the mission for tomorrow.  One agency might be ready to become a “game changer” while another agency’s big idea might be to reinvent their funding model to ensure sustainability.

If, in practice,  the use of BIG ideas is tackled at the front end of the planning process then the principles can then serve as the compass points during the planning process and sometimes, more importantly, revisiting  the ideals at the the end of the planning process can become useful final evaluative criterion to check the plan’s completeness. As I have worked with numerous teams on strategic planning, the process often (and ideally) starts large, aspirational and almost dreamy. As teams work to prioritize and define with some specificity, the end of the process is often mired in details — “now should be be projecting a .5 FTE or .8 FTE development associate?”  When the final copy is produced. the board has likely seen five or six iterations of the plan and the final vote is often, “yes. let’s be done with this monster.”  Rather than that sort of unceremonious end to a large investment of time, energy and passion, reflecting on how well the plan addresses the “big ideas” related to what an agency wants to  become can give energy and vitality to the approval and implementation of a strategic plan.

While this post may seem like it is discussing a tiny facet of strategic planning (and I agree it is), I am writing about it because it is a facet that it often overlooked.  By intentionally including reflection about “big ideas” in the strategic planning process, it can help frame, reinforce and energize a process. For any agency committing to a thoughtful strategic planning process the “Big Ideas” are critical tools to build and maintain focus and give a point of reference by which an agency can judge the authenticity of the finished strategic plan.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

Linking compelling social needs to the ideas of innovation creates the construct of of social innovation. Social innovation is the “holy grail” of nonprofit, philanthropic or government in search of finding new ways of creating community level solutions for social needs. As a contemporary overused buzzword, social innovation writers, consultants and scholars emphasize social innovation as the process of inventing or creating novel approaches to social change. Unfortunately, we too often hear words such as “catalytic” or “disruptive” to magnify the scale of the implied change. This “shiny new object” focus only on disruptive or catalytic social innovation distorts social innovation because it emphasizes only one point on a four point matrix.

In this blog, I want try and bring dimensions to social innovation to remove it from the abstract buzzword category. In this way, I hope to offer the starting point for strategic conversations within and across organizations about innovation.

It is not a new thought to think on innovation across two continuum (see reference 1). So if catalytic or disruptive innovation is at one end of a change continuum then the other end of the spectrum is process innovation that day-to-day work of continuous improvement for organizations. Positioning social innovation as adaptive or disruptive/catalytic is a very useful way of anchoring the basic dimensions of the social innovation concept.

Process innovation and disruptive/catalytic innovation need to be considered against the continuum of leverage or scale. For example, the Obama administration has developed a new partnership between government and philanthropy heralded under the banner of the Social Innovation Fund. The purpose is described as targeting millions of dollars in public-private funds to expand effective solutions across economic opportunity, healthy futures and, youth development and school support. The approach is to “create a catalog of proven approaches that can be replicated in communities across the country.” (see reference 2) The Social Innovation Fund clearly provides leverage by aggregating philanthropic and government dollars and uses that leverage to scale programs. However, given that the Social Innovation Fund requires grants to be based on existing programs and services that meet an “evidence-base” criteria, some have argued that true innovation is missing from the initiative. For example, one can read in various opinion blogs, statements such as this one:

“The central mission dissonance of the Social Innovation Fund has always been the question of what its real objective was. Was it meant to be a fund that really pushes an experimental agenda and deploys capital in favor of new approaches to social change that have both high risk and high reward? Or was it alternately a chance for the government to get a hand in on organizations whose models started as innovative and who were reaching an inflection point where new resources and government support could help them achieve the scale their proven model demanded.” (see reference 3)

So considering the larger context of social innovation, we can see that the two dimensions of the construct include the dimension of continuous verses discontinuous innovation and the second dimension of leverage and scale. Placing the two dimensions across each other, the concept of social innovation can be represented as four typologies as illustrated in the figure one.

The patterns and practice describing innovation that emerge when we consider the degree of change coupled with the degrees of leverage and scale can be described as follows:

Process Innovation: When the degrees of change are low (as in consistent and continuous) and the resources available for leverage and scale are inadequate, social innovation is largely consists of process improvements. This category of change is not simply trying “doing more with less,” but it is the sum total of the intentional, systematic, and strategic efforts of an agency to improve its processes largely within its existing structure, programs, and services.

Growth Innovation: When an organization is focused on innovating within its existing structure, programs, and services, in the context of collaborative relationships or increased financial resources (leverage and scale), the innovation results in program growth. Typically this growth is driven by intentional program expansion, program replication, or program dissemination. It is in this quadrant that innovation might be opening branch operations in a new geography, training others in an affiliate or dissemination model, or expanding service hours. Innovation is typically about about scaling systems to serve more people, creating value chain efficiencies, or creating rigorous evidence-base that encourages the adoption of program or service models by others.

Adaptive Innovation: Going back to an operating environment of constraints (in relationship to leverage and scale), adaptive innovators are those willing to move ahead of or beyond its existing structure, programs, and services to achieve a higher degree of social impact. Innovators in this might move out of preventive or secondary program and services and begin devoting limited resources to working upstream on policy or advocacy. In this quadrant, innovators do not simply ask “how can we improve what we are doing” but rather ask, “could we be more effective if we moved outside of our existing strategies, programs and services?

Catalytic Innovation: The final quadrant of innovation is where large-scale change is sought and is supported with ample leverage and scale. It is not seeks to grow and scale an idea but also seeks to amplify innovation by considering discontinuous ideas in addition to continuous ones. As suggested previously, Disruptive innovation is pursed as if it were the holy grail of social sector. Indeed, catalytic change can create powerful change (see reference 4) but giving disruptive innovation an unequal weight compared to the other three quadrants can skew with meaning of social innovation and actually be a disservice to the field. Disruptive innovation is the current concept with cachet and gravitas relative to the “mundane” work of systematic program improvement and hence, there is the potential that solid process, adaptive, or growth strategies might be overlooked.

The point to be underscored is this. We need to create a shared understanding of social innovation as a critical foundation for building a local perspective for social innovation. Common language is essential to creating a local social innovation approach to compelling social needs. In this overview I have proposed a more robust seed bed for considering approaches to innovation. By broadening the dimensions of social innovation, we can now turn our attention to creating a social innovation framework. It is not about catalytic innovation or adaptive innovation as if it were either/or. Rather social innovation is about both/and. The community needs the investments and strategic thinking to create catalytic innovation that disrupts business as usual. The community also needs the skills and tools to engage in process, adaptive, and growth innovation.

Thinking critically about when to focus on innovation from a process, adaptive, growth and disruptive perspective and how to combine such innovations will result in a stronger social-citizen sector addessing compelling community needs. It is my perspective that only with a broader view of innovation can nonprofits, philanthropy, and government organizations can engage individually and collectively in more thoughtful and strategic conversations about social innovation.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

References

1. For a useful policy overview see:  “Social Innovation”: What is it? Who Does it?

2. Source: Corporation for National and Community Service – Social Innovation Fund

3. Source: The Social Innovation Fund Grants Focus on “What Works”

4. See as an excellent example: Catalytic Philanthropy

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.

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

.

I recently read, yet one more so-called expert advice column promoting the ultimatum of “merge” or “die” as the pathway for many nonprofits. In this iteration, the ultimatum arises out of the knee jerk reaction caused by the recent economic downturn. Citing duplication of service and competition for scarce resources, some foundations, philanthropists and many in the nonprofit consulting industry are becoming almost evangelical about the merger and acquisition strategy for social sector organizations.  For example, the leader of one organization that provides training and support to Oregon nonprofits made the statement that perhaps their agency “should serve as birth control for nonprofits,” adding that there are so many nonprofits and that money is scarce.  I agree that there are a fair number of nonprofits with bad business models and that even many stronger nonprofits have been severely damaged by the economic chaos of the last couple of years.  As I have posted elsewhere, I also agree that collaboration, at some level, is appropriate an appropriate strategic conversation for many nonprofit organizations.   However, having external funding agencies, philanthropists and a consulting industry pressuring nonprofits to either merge or acquire as “birth control” is, at best, narrow and unimaginative and, at worse, self-serving and bullying behavior. We would never think of being as paternalistic to “for profit” companies as we are towards social service agencies.

.

While economic concerns among nonprofits are real and there are duplicative agencies competing for scarce resources, the driver for collaboration can’t be reduced to economics alone.  Economic solvency is a lazy marker for effectiveness or impact and to impose collaboration based on economics alone is misguided. Just as in the private sector, success for social sector agencies is determined by a combination of products or services, leadership, agility and capital.  Designing a facilitation process with nonprofit agencies facing financial challenges should not begin with the condescending assertion that merger is the assumed pathway. Rather, catalytic facilitation includes a multi-dimensional exploration of capital in the context of products or services, leadership, and agility.  I would like to suggest several guiding principles for facilitating such a process.

.

Sovereignty:  In working with any organization, the spirit of sovereignty must be respected and embraced in the change process. Organizations in the midst of fiscal challenges need to be empowered from the strength of their sovereignty. While I believe that empowerment is a foundation of my consulting practice, empowerment becomes the dominant frame in a process might include as an outcome a collaboration that alters an agency’s autonomy.

.

Aspiration: During times of fiscal challenge many organizations default to a “circle the wagon strategy ” where decisions are made from the framework of enduring the financial assault.  Unfortunately, this is precisely when the message of “merge or die” is often introduced from some “sage” consultant. In reality, the most helpful process to an agency is not an ultimatum to merge but is a process that  that focuses on aspirations. Economic challenges should cause an organization to refocus on mission and vision.  Considering the question of “why were we called to exist” can re-energize an organization to positively rethink the foundations of strategy and social impact.  Spending time on the aspirational question of “why” is critical as a precursor to considering any pathway to cope with economic challenges.

.

Catalytic Innovation: I have been doing a fair amount of reading on the concept of “catalytic change” for social service organizations (see a couple resources below).  A key question of this emerging body of literature is “how can we create a strategy that achieves measurable impact?”  Implied in that question is looking for the second and third right answer and thinking bigger. The challenges imposed by economics are really opportunities to rethink “how” the “why” is implemented.  Spending time in the space of “how we get to the why” breeds innovation. The interests of convention, power and assumption that are united to say, “merge or die”  chokes the possibility of  innovation.

.

Alternative Reality: I started out this post lamenting the over-simplistic “merge or die” advice being metered out nonprofits and suggest that agencies in the midst of economic turmoil need to take the opportunity to go deep within their core competencies to find their own solution.  However, in community organizing there is the old saying that “the price of success is a constructive alternative” and so the final step of the reflection and planning process is the creation of a thoughtful alternative plan.  Intentional planning for how an organization will move forward while under economic siege requires leadership, vision and boldness as well as tactical and measurable action plans.

.

The organizations of tomorrow are being born out of the economic challenges of today.  The dominant voices argue that the organizations of tomorrow are those who are merging and acquiring today. I would argue that successful organizations of tomorrow are already visioning tomorrow and allowing the economic challengesof today to temper their core competencies of leadership, agility and innovation as they create their own future.  In this context there is a need for catalytic facilitation and process to help social sector organizations, thoughtfully reflect, plan and move confidently forward to create a more civil society.

.

Resources:

Disruptive Social Change

Catalytic Philanthropy

.

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.

Resources:

The Art of the Focused Conversation

Appreciative Inquiry

According to a recent study, “Many funders expect that they will come out of the downturn being far more strategic than they were before the crisis.”  How about your agency?  Check out how Facilitation & Process, LLC can help.  And remember there is a little help each day in the  Resource of the Day posted on Twitter.

.

I have written previously a four part series on strategic planning. This week I have been putting together a workshop on the role of scenarios as a tool in strategic planning. The request comes out of my work with another consultant on a scenario planning exercise that we recently coordinated as part of a business planning process.  The use of scenarios as a business planning tool can be traced back several decades and was popularized with couple of key articles by Pierre Wack that appeared in two Harvard Business Review articles back in the mid 80’s.  There are well developed methodologies for the creation of scenarios, including Future Search and Scenario Thinking.  In between these two methods are likely dozens of permutations of the scenario planning that practitioners have made up along the way.  While I believe that facilitating a scenario planning exercise can easily be done after some modest self-study, for me, the power of scenarios came alive after going through a number of scenario exercises both as a participant as well as a facilitator.  In this post I would like to describe several core principles of scenario planning that have come through my experiences using this planning methodology.

.

Scenario Planning is a Means and not an End: Scenarios, in essence, tell stories based on the near term certainties in the context of critical uncertainties.  Stories, however, cannot be confused with strategy.  I once was discussing with an executive director of an agency who called to inquire about strategic planning and suggested that she wanted to use scenario planning as the framework for the strategic plan.  She said something like, “I think what this agency needs is not the traditional strategic plan but a pithy and vivid scenario that conveys who we are and where we are going.”  While a strategic plan can be organized around a vivid scenario, scenarios alone cannot address the complexity of strategy.  I am often reminded of the truism that “a good slogan can stop progress for fifty years” and the risk of creating vivid scenarios is that the story replaces the strategy. Strategy and not story is what matters.

.

The Future is likely more Complicated than a Single Scenario: One of the criticisms of scenario planning is that the technique of using a two-by-two matrix to create a scenario produces a truncated view of the plausible future.  Except in rare instances an organizations future will be influenced by more than two certainties/uncertainties.  Rather than a one dimensional matrix the future is likely resembles a Rubik’s cube. In creating scenarios, one needs to build time into the process to twist and turn scenarios until there is alignment across several dimensions.

.

Scenario Planning Contains a Germinal Seed of Change:  Storytelling seems to be the latest consulting rage.  While I remain skeptical of the power of story in creating an organizational sea change, I believe that one the roles of a good scenario is that it begins to influence the culture of an organization moving it towards change.  New words, images, metaphors and stories that emerge from scenarios can be a powerful support in the development of a change strategy or strategic plan.

.

Scenarios Reflect Aspirations:  The reality is that despite the apparent objectivity of a scenario planning exercise, scenarios tend to gravitate towards the group bias and the story typically reflects the aspirational direction of the collective organization.  This is not a bad thing as long as the scenario is future-oriented, plausible and action-oriented.  In fact, I would suggest that the power of scenarios is that they are constructivist by nature.  A group working together to bring a scenario into existence begins the work of creation. Once created, the strategies and actions that support movement towards the realization of the scenario becomes a self-fulfilling direction. Again, as long as the scenario is based on informed decision-making and not simply a reflection of magical thinking, scenarios can contribute significantly to a strategic planning process by focusing the aspirations around a shared story about where the organization wants to be.

.

Scenario Planning is a Process and not an Event:  A final principle is related to the concept of the “means and not the end” and underscores the point. Like other planning processes, there is a temptation to let the scenario planning event become the definitive moment in time.  We need to guard against the thinking that “we did a scenario planning process last year.” The power of scenario planning is in the actions that follow the planning process.  The stories and scenario only has power as it comes to life in action.  Scenario planning is really the process of implementing change, achieving milestones and growth.

.

Considering these principles, a conclusion we can draw is that building scenarios is more art than science and while it engages the head, scenarios often more about passion, vision and heart.  As a result, scenario planning is a useful tool that works best where there is leadership, openness to change, uncertainty future, and the time to process the uncertainty. Conversely, if the way forward is predetermined or an organization is in the midst of a crisis or otherwise does not have the capacity to absorb long-term change, scenario planning will be less helpful.  Scenario planning is about moving confidently towards tomorrow and towards the aspiration of what an organization wants to become. In the hands of a skilled facilitator this process can be a meaningful way to engage stakeholders in a process of thoughtful change that strengthens the strategic intent of an organization. As we plan, manage and grow through these challenging times the tool of scenario planning can serve as a useful tool in the facilitation toolbox.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

References:

Future Search

What If: The art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits

.

When facilitating for collaboration the first task is for the stakeholders involved to understand and agree to the model of collaboration. In this process, a key role of the facilitator is to clearly describe models of collaboration and have a toolbox big enough to implement the models based on the customized and tailored needs of the group. At this deeper level, collaboration models typically have distinct organizational and governance structures attached and, in some cases, have legal structure implications. My intention is clearly not to offer legal advice but to simply introduce five models of collaboration that can serve as the basis of collaborative groups and teams.

Coalitions: The most readily assessable model of collaboration is the community coalition model. In a community coalition the focus of the collaboration is to concentrate the collective power of the members and focus it on action. Typically coalitions have membership guidelines, operating procedures and often bylaws, governance structures and elected leadership positions. There is a fairly large literature base and many textbooks describing the process and functioning of effective coalitions. Collaboration is based on shared goals and vision related to the action agenda. At times, coalitions use structured memoranda of understanding to help operationalize the collaborative process. A Google search will turn up numerous references for developing coalitions. One succinct primer on coalitions was developed by the Prevention Institute.

Communities of Practice:  Collaboration based on the concept of “communities of practice” involve the creation of a “learning guilds” that support the development of shared expertise and competencies. Developing collaboration around this model primarily focuses on distributing knowledge, competency and building networks between people. While the concept of communities of practice has appeared in the knowledge management literature for at least two decades, Etienne Wenger is one theorist that clearly develops the theoretical framework for this model.

Cooperatives:  A third model for collaboration is found in the concept of developing a cooperative. The drivers for cooperatives are seven principles relating to membership, control, participation, autonomy, learning, networking and social responsibility. Through co-ownership and participatory governance, a cooperative model has potential to encompass both learning and action. The University of Wisconsin has a great resource center dedicated to cooperatives.

Cohousing: At first glance the model of co-housing communities might seem a bit abstract to apply to the business or nonprofit sector. Cohousing is a property ownership and management concept where groups of individuals co-own homes that have elements of both social contact and individual space. Typically, cohousing communities have common facilities such as open space, courtyards, play space, and, in some cases, even shared living space like a communal kitchen. The governance structures for co-housing communities are egalitarian or even Socratic and emphasize problem solving and unanimity. Leaping to inter-agency collaboration, governance around shared values and interest in commons can be powerful. In a day when agency mergers increasingly being seem as a way to keep similar mission driven organizations viable, a co-housing model may be an instructive alternative that allows agencies to retain independence by designing and operating collaborations out of a shared space. A resource on Cohousing is the Cohousing Association of the United States.

Industry Clusters: A final model for collaboration to consider is found in the concept of industry clusters. Industry clusters are basically the associations of companies that share the same maket-space in a particular geographic location. The concept is to create a critical mass of related technologies, workforce and suppliers linked by buyer-seller or peer-to-peer relationships. The intended outcome is that “firms and workers in an industry cluster draw competitive advantage from their proximity to competitors, to a skilled workforce, to specialized suppliers and a shared base of sophisticated knowledge about their industry” (Reference: Oregon Clusters Website). Collaboration in an industry cluster approach balances the needs of individual companies and organizations against the larger need of the entire market with the goal of creating a network effect where the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

There is a myth perpetuated that “collaboration is an unnatural act” but thinking about the models and process of collaboration is, at its core, systems thinking. If we are intentional about imagining what collaboration could look like, it can serve as a frame for a strategic conversation about the role collaboration plays in strengthening the capacity of stakeholders as they seek to expand, grow and achieve a common mission.

As always your comments are welcome

(1)One critical texts that needs to be on your shelf is Michael Scharge’s book No More Teams!: Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration.

In the last 15-20 years the concept of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) has grown from an abstract investment concept to a mainstream practice.  According to the Social Investment Forum’s 2007 report on SRI Trends, over $2.71 trillion in total assets are being managed using one or more of the three core SRI investing strategies. This represents one in nine invested dollars. Increasingly individual and institutional investors want to see their investments generate not only a positive financial return but a positive social return as well.  In this context, thinking strategically about how your organization demonstrates social responsibility is an important planning tool when considering growth.  How is it that your organization demonstrates social responsibility?  Before that question can be approached, it might be useful to briefly consider the core SRI strategies.  These include:

.

Social Screening: SRI first and foremost considers screening of investments according to some pre-defined criteria.  Investments that fail to meet the criteria are screened out.  As examples, some common screening criteria may relate to a) the potential harm inherent in the product or service where defense contractors, alcohol, tobacco, and gaming industries might be excluded; b) negative environmental impacts where petroleum, nuclear, or chemical industries might be excluded, c) worker or human rights where industries negative diversity policies, geopolitical location or worker organizing practices might be considerations for exclusion.  Conversely, profitable companies that demonstrate exemplary practices related to product benefit, sustainable environmental practices or supportive worker practices are eagerly sought as  included investments.

.

Shareholder Advocacy: Using shareholder proxy voting power and other vested powers (e.g., board representation) to push for positive policies or to advocate for change is a second dimension SRI.  In essence, shareholder advocacy asserts pressure to steer companies towards change that is consistent with the Social Screening framework.  Conversely, shareholder advocacy can reinforce companies’ commitments to both profitability and social responsibility.

.

Community Investing: The third SRI strategy is community investing, While this is the least commonly used strategy  the concept behind community investing is to make capital accessible at the local level.  Examples of this strategy includes investing in regional banks and institutions that provide capital (i.e., loans) to smaller local businesses or investing in the development of affordable housing.

.

Taken together these three strategies suggest that a growing number of investors are interested in the double (people and profit) or triple bottom line (people, profit and planet).  These investors are driven by specific causes, are interested in being actively involved and demand local impact.  So businesses increasingly need to think strategically about positioning their companies in the context of the double or triple bottom line. Nonprofit organizations also need to pay attention to SRI strategies because there is a parallel trend in philanthropy that combines cause with active involvement and a focus on local impact.  One only needs to look at social venture philanthropy and giving circles as examples of  SRI approaches to philanthropy.

.

So, applying this concept back to strategic planning, it becomes clear that organizations need to position themselves as “model citizens.”  Again, while many organizations “zoom in” on the immediate context of growing or sustaining their ventures, it is equally important to “zoom out” and consider the larger systemic view of how capital is changing.  Strategic questions start with the three principles.  How are we meeting a positive social need?  How are we engaging our “investors” as they advocate for change?  How are we demonstrating a clear and definitive local return on investment?

.

From the answers to these strategic questions come operational strategies, such as a) assuring that your marketing messages are clear and focused on social responsibility, b) creating opportunities for our “investors” to engage with with in social change and being willing to respond to their advocacy, c) ensuring that you are measuring performance in a way that demonstrates your local impact.
.

We live in a new era that is described as post-industrial, networked, empowered and localized.  Engagement is on the rise and can be seen in such trends as the growth of SRI. Engaged Investors are here to stay and it is up to organizations to measure themselves against this new standard. Organizations strategically considering this new context will thrive by investing the time and energy to develop a socially responsible mission and operating framework.

.

Further Reading

Socially responsible Investing Primer

Social Investment Forum’s 2007 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends

Social Venture Partners Portland

The Impact of Giving Together

.