Nonprofit
Boards and Governance Review
Strategic Plans Aren't
the Answer
(Part 1 of a 5 part series)
By Terrie Temkin,
Ph.D.
NonProfit Management Solutions, Inc.
[Part
1]
Much
has been written over the years about the
value of strategic planning and it is the
rare organization nowadays that doesn't know
it should have a strategic plan. However,
as a consultant who has dedicated the last
10 years to facilitating such plans, I am
calling "uncle." I think there
is a better way. In this five-part article,
I will share my observations about why strategic
plans don't work, why I believe there must
be a shift to building strategic thinking
boards, what I mean by a strategic thinking
board, and how to build one.
In
this section I will cover the reason I think
it is time for a change. In Parts II - V
I will discuss how you can build a strategic
thinking board in your organization. Specifically,
Part II will deal with adjusting your bylaws
to promote strategic thinking. Part III will
deal with recruiting strategic thinkers.
Part IV will cover orienting your board members
to the organization and their responsibility
for strategic thinking. And, Part V will
discuss structuring your meetings to maximize
strategic input
Why
Strategic Plans Don't Work
Traditional
plans -- those massive documents designed
to provide organizations with long-term direction
-- are philosophically sound, but haven't
proven to work in today's fast changing environment.
For one thing, the large majority of nonprofit
organizations don't have the required months,
money or manpower to devote to the lengthy
planning process. Strategic plans can cost
$5,000 to over $100,000, take anywhere from
four to 18 months, and involve the staff,
board and other stakeholders. Even if organizations
had the money to spend, the other factors
are daunting.
The
required commitment of time and effort is
significant, if not prohibitive. I've known
groups to spend months just rewriting their
mission statement! Environmental scans to
identify those trends that are likely to
impact the organizations' plans can take
hours and hours of work in the facilitation,
recording and analysis of interviews, focus
groups, or surveys. And, of course, there
is the time required to actually plan. Who
has this kind of time to give? Many organizations
have been forced to lay off staff due to
the economic downturn. Typically, those remaining
are stretched too thin to take on additional
responsibilities, especially those as demanding
as traditional planning. Some of these same
organizations further complicate the situation
by protecting their board members' busy calendars
by giving them a pass when it comes to doing
any work outside of regularly scheduled board
meetings.
Of
course, there is the other end of the spectrum
where organizations may spend three hours
on a Saturday morning with just half the
board in attendance, cobble together a few
goals with no or minimal preplanning, and
call it a strategic plan. One has to wonder
if the results can realistically be called
a plan and how strategic this
project could be.
Whichever
direction an organization takes, what really
destroys the effectiveness of strategic plans
is when boards fail to use the plans as the
guides they are meant to be -- referencing
them at every meeting, using them to make
programmatic, human resource and financial
decisions. They become instead expensive
dust catchers. And, unfortunately, this scenario
is more common than not.
Recently,
other issues have arisen to affect the usefulness
of strategic plans. The first is the speed
with which our daily environment is changing.
Strategic plans once covered a period of
10 - 20 years. Then it was five - seven.
Today those organizations still doing formal
strategic plans usually feel comfortable
projecting no more than three years out.
Yet, the organizations' work can't stop while
their plans are being created. If it takes
18 months to write a plan and it isn't feasible
to conceive a plan for more than three years
out, half the plan should be obsolete by
the time it is finished.
Why
there Must be a Paradigm Shift to Strategic
Thinking Boards
I
am not suggesting that nonprofits eschew
planning even with these drawbacks to traditional
strategic plans. The old adage, "You
don't have to plan to fail; all you have
to do is fail to plan," remains
true. Nor am I suggesting that nonprofits
plod along, doing business as usual and relying
on what they perceive as their importance
to the community to keep them afloat. Dan
Austin, a professor at Nova Southeastern
University, warns us, "Just because
you are on the side of angels doesn't mean
you are going to survive."
To
grow and prosper nonprofits must adopt a
culture that demands that its board members
never stop thinking strategically. The organizations
must rely on their boards -- the entity ultimately
responsible for ensuring an organization's
future -- to constantly reason, challenge
and express ideas from a strategic perspective.
More than just a case of semantics, this
is a critical change in focus for most boards.
Organizations
search out the best and the brightest to
sit on their boards. However, all too many
of the organizations then ask these talented
individuals to do little more than listen
to a series of reports. Questions -- the
underpinnings of strategic thinking -- are
often discouraged either because they lengthen
the meeting or challenge the leadership.
This type of behavior must change. We need
to encourage not discourage questions.
What
is a Strategic Thinking Board?
A
strategic thinking board asks questions and
looks at ramifications, intuitively buying-in
to what physicist Tom Hirshfield once said, "If
you don't ask, 'Why this?' often enough,
somebody will ask, 'Why you (this organization)?'" It
realizes that the questions it asks will
often be more valuable than any answers it
receives. It wants to understand why each
issue matters and how each decision will
reflect on the organization. Such a board
frames every decision against the organization's
mission, vision and values. Further, and
equally important, it sees planning as part
and parcel of every action the organization
takes rather than as a discrete activity.
A
strategic thinking board focuses its communication
about issues around 12 key factors:
- Potential
-- Can this option help us meet our organization's
needs? It's goals? Will it help us deal
with the unpredictable?
- Philosophy
-- Is this option consistent with our values
and policies?
- Image
-- What does this option say about our
organization?
- Stakeholders'
needs and desires -- Will this option be
readily acceptable to our clients and the
community?
- Worldview
-- Is this organization more traditional
or entrepreneurial in its approach?
- Sophistication
level -- How experienced is this organization
with the wide range of options available?
Are we ready to take on this particular
option?
- Life
cycle -- Is this option appropriate given
the fact that our organization is
- just
emerging;
- established;
- a
large bureaucracy; or
- on
the verge of collapse?
- Staffing
-- Do we have the people to carry off this
option successfully?
- Risk
-- Are we opening our organization to excessive
liability?
- Cost
-- Do the benefits of pursuing this option
outweigh the costs?
- Competition
-- Is everybody (anybody) else doing this?
- TSWQ
-- The "So What" Question. What
is really important about this? Will implementing
this option make a difference?
Boards
can learn to be strategic. In Part II of
this article I will suggest the first step
-- adjusting your bylaws to promote strategic
thinking.
Editor's
Note: Our thanks to Terrie Temkin her contribution
to Nonprofit
Boards & Governance Review. More information about Terrie can be found at: http://charitychannel.com/resources/Detailed/600.html
|
