How You Can Keep Up With Change

How You Can Keep Up With Change

"Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times."          —  Niccolo Machiavell

The world is constantly in flux. Communities, states, societies, and demographics of constituents are constantly transforming. As leaders in a society that is ever changing, it is imperative to keep pace with changing demographics in order to be successful.

Be flexible. Be adaptable. Be open to new possibilities.

Why is this important?

-As leaders of nonprofit agencies, the primary goal of our work is to provide effective services that meet a need and accurately represent a mission statement (Herman, 2010). Nonprofit services will not be effective if leaders do not consider the changing demographics of the populations they serve. Needs change, grow, shrink, and transform. Imagine trying to address the root causes of poverty in an upper middle class community. If a need is not present, leaders must adapt.

-Engagement with clients, donors, and volunteers change as demographics change. For instance, household income is a major predictor of giving (Independent Sector, 2001). If the socioeconomic composition of a community changes, nonprofits will have to create new and resourceful ways to engage a diverse donor pool.

Implications for Leaders

-Leaders need to consider who is involved in the conversation. Those who have leadership positions and are making decisions may not be representative of the client population. As demographics change, community needs may also change. It is, thus, vital to understand trends and constantly conduct need assessments of the community in which your nonprofit is situated.

-Changing demographics can be a catalyst for innovation in an agency. Nonprofits need to adapt and create innovative programs and services in order to be successful in a changing climate. If nonprofits do not encourage innovation, they will lose their competitive edge to other nonprofits that are providing services that are better matched to client needs (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989).

What can you do about it?

-Create focus groups! Leaders need to embrace the change. One pitfall many leaders face, however, is assuming that they understand the needs of a diverse population without asking any questions. Let the community tell your agency what they need and what services would best match their values or interests. An additional pro of creating focus groups is that including clients in the conversation encourages buy in within these consumer groups. Creating ownership of proposed programs and solutions within the community is vital to a successful organization.

-Recruit diverse staff. Having a diverse staff can symbolize that your agency respects and values diverse opinions. This will increase communication between the agency and community, and it can also build the trust and credibility of your organization within the community.

-Outline short term and long term goals. Be transparent with community about what your agency is working towards (Tichy & Charan, 1989). Providing this information can mobilize communities to take an active interest in issues and solutions your agency is facing.

Leaders need to encourage innovative practices that are representative of community needs in order to maximize success in a changing environment. If the environment is changing, you must change. You cannot expect success unless you are willing to adapt your practices.

References

Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. (1989). Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review, pg 63-76.

Herman, R. (2010).  The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (3^rd ed).  

        San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Independent Sector (2001). Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings From A National    

        Survey, pg 16-25.

Tichy, M. & Charan, R. (1989). Speed, Simplicity, and Self-Confidence. Harvard Business Review, 

        pg. 112-120.

When Teamwork Goes Awry

When Teamwork Goes Awry

As a child, we are taught that teamwork allows us to achieve our goals faster and better than working alone. It is true, when two eight year olds get together to work on their math homework it usually gets done faster and better.  However when complex agencies try to collaborate to achieve goals, teamwork does not always produce efficiency and effectiveness.

 As the saying goes: one plus one does not always equal three.

Collaboration occurs between all sectors of society including non-profit, for-profit, and government agencies. It can appear to be an enticing and positive solution to collaborate with another agency to solve mutual goals. As we saw in the three cases presented last week, however, collaboration requires a good deal of planning and foresight in order to be effective. There were several common themes or issues in the cases presented in class that highlight the potential opportunities and challenges involved in collaborating across these sectors.

Before I explain, however, I would like to outline which sectors each case represents so that we are all on the same page.

-Non-profit-Government: La Alianza and Massachusetts Department of Social Services

-Non-profit-For-profit: Community Involvement and Timberland

-Non-profit-Non-profit: Seattle Art Museum and First Things First

Now that everyone is speaking the same language, I want to show how the issues presented in these cases provide an interesting backdrop to discuss the pros and cons of collaboration between sectors.

Themes:

1. Funding:

            -Non-profit-Government: In this case, there was no specific policy in place in the event that demand for CPS services exceeded the supply of funding (Sharma, 1998).  An opportunity of creating a non-profit-government collaboration is increasing the scope of services that are provided to a community. Many times, however, the government creates social mandates that agencies are required to carry out, but provide little or no funding for these new provisions.  In this way, collaboration could increase the rules non-profits are required to follow without necessarily increasing the funding to meet these new regulations.

            -Non-profit-For-profit: When Timberland began to face financial hardships it scaled back it’s funding to City Year and the collaboration began to dwindle. For-profit and non-profit organizations face different bottom lines. For-profits are ultimately focused on profitability while non-profits are concerned about social justice missions (Herman, 2010). When for-profits are profitable, the collaboration can flourish, however when these companies face financial hardships the collaboration may bottom out.

            -Non-Profit-Non-Profit: In this collaboration, the Seattle Art Museum provided most of the funding while First Things First provided the manpower to get out the vote. Funding can be a cakewalk if one non-profit organization has the funds to support another financially in a collaboration. If two small non-profits decide to collaborate, however, there it may become more difficult to discern how to raise funds (Sharma, 1998)

Lack of Shared Vision

2. Lack of a Shared Vision

            -Non-profit-Government: Government agencies represent taxpayer interests while non-profit organizations represent the community’s needs.  Collaboration could increase the efficacy of services to both populations. In this case, however, a divide between preventative and punitive abuse services resulted in a merger that would not be sustainable (Sharma, 1998)

            -Non-profit-For-profit: In this case, mission drift occurred for both organizations because there was not a clear vision for the collaboration. Timberland failed to put the shared mission above it’s own agenda which ultimately hurt the alliance (Herman, 2010).

            -Non-profit-Non-profit: Both the art museum and First Things First had a clear mission and were successful in the passing of the referendum. It may be difficult, however, to integrate two passionate non-profits because the heart and soul of a non-profit is its mission statement (Herman, 2010).

References

Herman, R. (2010).  The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (3^rd ed).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sharma, J. & Missey, A. (1998). How I Learned to Stop Griping…And Love Collaboration. National Community Service Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Why the Status Quo Has Got to Go

Why the Status Quo Has Got to Go          

          Many people have experienced some sort of change in their lives. Whether it is moving to a new city, changing jobs, or even changing wardrobes one thing is for certain; change is hard.

           But why does change seem like an insurmountable hurdle? And what can agencies do to overcome this challenge?

           As a manager of a nonprofit, it is important to understand and identify basic barriers to change. Below are five reasons why new ideas are difficult to implement and some easy ideas to circumvent these issues.

1.  Strategic Planning

The Problem: In almost every agency there is a complex web of challenges that need to be addressed. Facing multiple, complex issues is a very overwhelming task. It is even more daunting to decide which problem to tackle first and how to create practical solutions. Many nonprofits, therefore, are bogged down from the get go and never create a plan to move the organization forward (Hamel, G. & Prahalad, 1989)

The Solution: Hiring qualified leaders who have experience creating strategic plans is one way to solve this problem. Outlining internal and external strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities allows agencies to prioritize problems. Writing down a physical plan makes problems seem more manageable so that real solutions can be created and steps can be put in place to implement these changes. It also creates measures by which the company can assess its progress towards these new goals (Hamel, G. & Prahalad, 1989).

2.  Competing Interests

            The Problem: There are always multiple ways to approach a problem and many perspectives to consider when thinking about change. Nonprofits have to consider competing board, employee, volunteer, funder, and client perspectives before creating a plan for change (Herman, 2010). This can be time consuming, especially if an agency does not have established relationships or open communication with these groups of people.

            The Solution: Managers should be transparent about problems the company is facing. The use of focus groups and surveys can help managers understand stakeholder perspectives before making changes within the agency (Tichy & Charan, 1989). Allowing stakeholders a voice in the change process also encourages buy in from these groups of people. In this way, they will be empowered to embrace change and move the company forward.

3. Mission Creep

            The Problem: Some nonprofits fall into the trap of trying to solve too many social problems. Organizations may expand into areas in which they do not have appropriate skills or resources (Herman, 2010). This creates a lack of fit between the agency’s mission and values, and the work that they are engaging in. 

            The Solution: Firstly, agencies need to clarify their mission and vision (Herman, 2010). This will help guide conversation about how proposed changes reflect the mission of the organization. Organizations can also consider collaborating with other agencies that are doing similar work. In this way, an organization may be able to pool more resources to affect broader social needs (Herman, 2010).

4. Funding

            The Problem: Oftentimes, there is a lack of resources to implement proposed changes. Even if an organization creates the perfect plan for change, it cannot be implemented without adequate funding (Herman, 2010).

            The Solution: Managers need to balance the needs of the community with the potential resource market that is available (Herman, 2010). Nonprofits can accomplish this through an internal scan of the current financial situation and an external scan of economic, social, or political dimensions that may impact funding (Tregoe, 1983).

5. Innovation and Technology

            The Problem: Nonprofits are constantly responding to a changing environment instead of anticipating or creating the change (Cameron, 1991). In this way, organizations are playing “catch up” to other agencies that reward innovation and invest in technology (Hamel & Prahalad, 1989).

            The Solution: Managers need to create a reward system that encourages innovation and the development of novel ideas (Tichy & Charan, 1989). Investing in trainings and hiring diverse employees will also help promote new ideas in the agency. Finally, a work group could be created to forecast trends so that the agency is anticipating change instead of merely responding to it.

References

Cameron, K. (1991). Developing Management Skills. Harper-Collins: New York, Chpt 10.

Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. (1989). Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review, pg 63-76.

Herman, R. (2010).  The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (3^rd ed).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tichy, M. & Charan, R. (1989). Speed, Simplicity, and Self-Confidence. Harvard Business Review, pg. 112-120.

Tregoe, B. & Zimmerman, J. (1983). Top Management Strategy. Simon & Schuster: New York.

Tackling Social Problems of the 21st Century

Tackling Social Problems of the 21^st Century 

Have you ever wondered how social problems involving education, health, and access to services are addressed?  Which organizations in society are actually catalysts for change in America today?

As many readers may guess, the answer is complicated.

In an article by Howard Berman, he explains that there is a complex interplay between government, business (for-profit), and nonprofits that work together to solve these societal issues.

Here is the basic who’s who in the world of social change:

1.     Government

The government plays a major role in establishing guidelines for social programs and policies. In essence, the government has established a set of rules to determine who is deserving of services and who is not. Government, thus, creates a safety net for vulnerable populations. It does not, however, deliver or implement many of these programs (Berman, 2002). These roles and responsibilities fall to the ever growing nonprofit sector.

It is also important to consider that the checks and balances at the government level make affecting change in this sector a lengthy process (Berman, 2002).

2.     Business (aka For-Profit)

The bottom line for many businesses comes down to money. Like the name insinuates, profit is the driving force for many for-profit organizations (Herman, 2010).  Recently, however, there has been a new buzzword in the business world called social entrepreneurship. Many for-profits are attempting to play a larger role (and divert a larger portion of their profit) to social problems like education, poverty, and community health (Berman, 2002). Ultimately, however, for-profits answer to their stakeholders who are interested in making money as opposed to social welfare issues (Berman, 2002).

In some ways, government and for-profit agencies actually help to fuel nonprofit growth. For instance, the government incentivizes individuals (those working for businesses) who charitably contribute to charities or nonprofits (Herman, 2010).

3.     Nonprofit

Where the magic happens. Pardon the cliché. Unlike the government or businesses, nonprofits have the ability to focus purely on social welfare issues (Berman, 2002). While nonprofits are accountable to funders and a board of directors, they are also accountable to their mission and the clients with whom they serve. (Berman, 2002). This allows nonprofits to work on social issues without the constraints of other sectors of society.

Take Away Points:

The government depends upon nonprofits to solve social issues because it is too slow and cumbersome to affect change quickly (Berman, 2002). The government, thus, incentivizes for-profit individuals to donate to nonprofits. Nonprofits, therefore, depend upon both the government and for-profits to remain economically solvent (Berman, 2002).

**Disclaimer: Above I have outlined the readers digest version of government, business, and nonprofit agencies. It is important to note that in recent times the boundaries between these organizations are blurring (Gowdy et. al, 2009). There are increasing opportunities for collaboration between nonprofits/for-profits and non-profits/government advocacy. Hopefully these networks will increase innovation, efficiency, and the ability for nonprofits to reach more clients. (Gowdy et. al,  2009).

References

Berman, H. (2002). The McNerney Forum: Doing “Good” vs. Doing “Well”-The Role of Nonprofits in Society. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, 39 (5-11).

Gowdy, H., Hildebrand, A., La Piana, D., & Mendes Campos, M. (2009). Convergence: How Five Trends Will Reshape the Social Sector. The James Irvine Foundation, pg 5-29.

Herman, R. (2010).  The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (3^rd ed).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.