RSSP: Really simple strategic planning
Over the years I’ve written about how convoluted strategic planning gets for most organizations. Most of the small non-profits I work with seem to think it’s wise to use mainstream business strategic planning frameworks to plot their way forward. Even though these frameworks are pursued with the best of intentions, for many volunteer Boards of small and meagerly funded organizations, it’s usually overkill to adopt highly technical frameworks for planning. It might just be too much.
Even the process of vision, mission, goals and objectives is often too overbearing because it tends to force conversations into boxes, and it often results in Boards spending a lot of time designing statements that are too high minded, and largely forgotten. It also constrains the process and uses valuable time to talk about abstract notions that might be over kill for an organization that just does one thing well. Sometimes “providing quality child care at an affordable price” is all you need to say.
So I’m thinking about what IS essential for Board planning in small organizations, and here are some of the things that make good sense to address:
What’s going on out there? A conversation about what is going on in the world and how it effects the work of the organization. This could take the form of a reflective Board meeting, a presentation on demographics or other social trends, understanding the political forces that shape their funding and operations and so on. Could be as simple as a conversation, or as involved as a learning journey. Regardless it grounds the work of the organization in the world that it serves.
What’s happening in here? What has heart and meaning for us? What do we love about the work we do in the world? What needs to be said about our contribution? Also, what is the current state of play here? What pressing issues do we have within the organization in terms of staff, funding, capital and service? This is a look at our mission and vision but also raises awareness of the important governance issues for a Board. Keeping this conversation high level has the added benefit of resulting in only the big things making the radar, meaning that the staff can concentrate on the day to day operations without being micromanaged.
What are the scenarios that might unfold? What is possible in the next five years? How might we react to things? I find scenario planning to be a fun and creative activity, and the deeper you can go into it, the more ownership people take over their futures. This kind of exercise can involve others as well, including staff, stakeholders, clients and supporters. Everyone can be involved in imagining scenarios for the future.
What decisions do we need to make? Really, all planning comes down to making decisions. Some of these are big and others are small, but if you can get a handled on the key decisions that you will be facing in the next five years, it helps to focus the work of a Board on gathering information and preparing to choose between options. So what decisions will we be faced with? A new site? New program offerings? Changing the funding model? Capital decisions? The best planning is directed at being able to make these decisions in a timely and wise fashion.
These are four main areas to focus on. Each could be the focus of a Board meeting that drives the planning process. What other simple instructions can we use to streamline the process of strategic planning for small Boards and organizations?
I think this is dead-on, Chris, particularly the notion of ‘what’s going on in here’ – the area that, oddly enough, small organizations have the most difficulty articulating.
The inherently-nimble nature of small organizations can be a wonderfully-empowering trait, but can also easily lead to a rapid series of directional changes that, rather than informing, obfuscate the planning process. I’m not sure how I would integrate the idea into your clearly-elucidated areas, but adhering to strategic plans as an organization evolves seems to me to be a must.
Thanks Ian…perhaps it is not so much adhering to a stretegic plan per se, but making a regular practice of strategic planning. In other words, if every other Board meeting, there was a mini-planning process undertaken it would keep the big picture in mind while the Board continued to delve into the conversations they need to work through their decisions list. So it allows small organizations to tweak as they go without getting totally out to sea with a vision/mission reinvention.
Stick to the practice, not the plan…could that be one to add?
In response to your last comment, I think it would be a great addition. Together with reframing planning as an ongoing conversation, it makes this more of a sense – respond activity (versus grand plan setting). I like the notion of enabling a more fluid, responsive dance between the the org and its operating environment.
Having reflected on sessions I’ve facilitated or participated in, it seems that the key benefit derived from planning sessions was the connection created amongst the group involved and an increased awareness of the diversity of skills/contributions in the room. This can enable different actions to be taken in responses to changes in operating context.
Ah, what a timely conversation! Chris, I think your comments about strategic planning are true for any organisation, big and small, NFP, corporate and government. There seems to be a resurgence in organisations wanting ‘traditional’ SP with all the ‘certainty’ that is supposed to bring. Facilitating this is very frustrating as we know the value is in the conversations, yet the participants and their leaders often expect the unobtainable. I suspect the gfc, pace of change and complexity of the work many organisations are doing is manifesting in this need for planning certainty. I do like Guy Kawasaki’s take – “write deliberate, act emergent” and E B White’s quote: “I get up every morning to both change the world and have one hell of a good time. Sometimes this makes planning my day difficult.” Indeed!
The piece I would add is some sort of ongoing conversation about who is going to do what and how is everyone else going to support them. My experience is this is particularly contentious in small organizations where people wear many hats, on many teams and are overworked and under-compensated.
One tool I found useful came from Chris Thorsen. He suggested a post-decision step: a negotiation around
1. “who is on point” for what action and by when, and
2. “who is on support”.
The language was palatable and seeing people raise their hands to support the accountable party is empowering.
Where we got into hot water was negotiating “permissions” – namely, if I don’t get what I need from you, what next?
If anyone can point me to solutions for the “responsibility without the authority” conundrum of horizontal organizations, I’d be most grateful.
It
Nice additions here Miranda…
In Open Space we talk about Passion bounded by Responsibility as a basic mechanic of the process. Part of the answer to the conundrum there is about adopting the right kind of horizontal organizational structure and using the right processes for that paradigm. This is where in the Art of Hosting community we talk about the “fifth organizational” paradigm which is a way of structuring work and organizations that combines hierarchy, bureaucracy, circles and networks.