Monthly Archives: January 2011

Get it in writing to get the story straight

Posted on by
1
Share

By John Thomas
JTPR Inc.

Not long ago, I asked a board on which I serve to do a little exercise. Each person on the board was to send me an email answering the following questions about one of our key programs:

  • What do we want to achieve – what are our objectives for this program and its subparts?
  • Are we accomplishing our objectives?
  • How do we measure success?

The initial reaction to my request was impatience. Some of the board members seemed to think it was a needless exercise. After all, the program had been going on for some time and “everybody knows” the answers to these questions. And, besides, couldn’t we just have a conversation and get this taken care of?

“Humor me,” I said.

As you might guess, when I got the emailed responses, they didn’t suggest the notion that “everybody knows” the program’s objectives. In fact, the answers varied widely in some cases. After that exercise, we were able to begin a process that resulted in radical change to the program, and a new level of success.

Unfortunately, this “everybody knows” mentality is common with nonprofit boards, and it develops for a number of reasons. For example, a board member often carries forward the mindsets and opinions of the person who recruited him or her; in other cases, a member might join a board with such a passion for the cause that he or she sees it as a moral commitment … that “must” be shared by everyone.

So, it pays to ask the question. But why ask for an email rather than a conversation? For a few reasons:

  • Everyone must contribute. In a meeting, it’s easy for people to drop out of the conversation.
  • People can’t simply nod and move on. Strong personalities can steer public conversations. In private, people have to deliver their own thoughts. Remember: If you’re seeking to gather information, go one-on-one; if you’re looking to deliver information broadly or generate ideas, the group dynamic often works best.
  • People think more when they write. Forced to put something into writing, we tend to consider it more deeply and, therefore, offer something that reflects a core idea rather than the first thing that comes into our minds.
  • You know who said what. Individual statements can get lost in meeting minutes. If someone says something that needs to be addressed directly, it’s much easier to have that conversation if you have a direct attribution.
  • You know who can deliver information succinctly, and who needs to be coached. You need your board members to be able to describe your organization and its mission in clear, simple terms. If you get their thoughts in writing, you’ll know right away if certain board members are struggling to deliver your key messages succinctly or if they simply have the messages wrong. From this exercise, you might discover that you need to have a Mission 101 session with your board, and a workshop on describing that mission.

Generally speaking, I’m a big fan of group discussions. The collective wisdom and big ideas that can flow from a good meeting cannot be matched by one person sitting alone. But there are times when you need to do a reality check, and when that’s the case, it’s often best to get it in writing.

If you asked your board for this kind of email, would you get what “everybody knows”? Or would you get the clear message that you have a lot of work to do with your board.

Creating Shared Value Between Grantmakers and Grantees

Posted on by
Reply
Share

By Achieve Guest Blogger Tony Macklin

I just read the Harvard Business Review article “Creating Shared Value” by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer (also here) and highly recommend it.  (Thanks to Paul Shoemaker at Social Venture Partners for the tip.)

The article makes the case for businesses to create shared value – “policies and practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it participates.” In short, reconnect the success of a company with the success of its community in a way that goes beyond charitable giving and social responsibility.  One of their example corporations, Nestle, has even snagged www.creatingsharedvalue.org for its own work.

The article focuses on how businesses and social enterprises are doing this, and touches on how government agencies and nonprofits need to re-think creating shared value with businesses.  Porter and Kramer describe five characteristics of government regulations that encourage companies to pursue shared value.  I think their list also applies to grantmakers and donors as they pursue more strategic and effective philanthropy.  Here are Porter and Kramer’s recommendations with my quick takes:

1. Set clear and measurable social goals

Clear and measurable goals are watchwords for smart philanthropy. My experience is that most donors and foundations can do well on this point without creating complex theories of change, but most could be better at being clear to the public and potential partners.


2. Set performance standards but don’t prescribe the methods (leave the methods to the innovation within companies)

How refreshing is it when a funder focuses on the ends rather than the means, encouraging grantees and community partners to develop solutions based on their own assets and experiences?  I have found this method of giving builds the most durable working relationships with grantees and can provide the most welcoming invitation for other funders and partners to co-invest.


3. Provide phase-in periods for meeting the new standards, allowing the companies time to develop and introduce new processes and products

Again, how refreshing is it when funders give nonprofits time to learn, adapt, and test new ideas?  There’s no question that there are circumstances when a funder may want and need to incentivize quicker action in a nonprofit or a community.  But I’ve found, as Kramer and Porter suggest, that the new standards and ideas will stick longer when nonprofits can adopt them in a timeframe that is consistent with their business cycles.


4. Establish universal measurement and performance-reporting systems and invest in the infrastructure for collecting reliable data

I’ve seen the power of shared measures across a set of nonprofits or even a group of foundations, and I remain a true believer in the idea.  Coming to agreement on those measures and performance systems isn’t easy, but it pays off in terms of evaluation that’s easier for the nonprofits, their donors, and the public to understand.  And Porter and Kramer are right to say that it takes purposeful and proactive investment to ensure the right data is available often enough for continuous improvement.  The results-based accountability process and the software provider Social Solutions offer a couple easy ways to accomplish this idea, and I’m sure there are many others.


5. Develop efficient and timely reporting of results rather than expensive, detailed compliance processes

Again, a focus on the ends rather than the means.  The best funders and nonprofits use these results as a basis for ongoing conversations about what’s working well and what needs changed – conversations that are more productive than long performance contracts and grant reports.  I’d add the idea of “public reporting of results” by both the funder and the nonprofits, encouraging public dialogue (and even action) around issues that impede better results.

What do you think?  Does this set of ideas around creating shared value translate to your idea of effective and meaningful philanthropy?  Would this type of grantmaking be easier for nonprofits too