In an earlier article, Making Strategy Happen, I examined the factors to be taken into account for the successful implementation of a strategic plan. Since the fall season typically brings a period of annual planning and budgeting for nonprofits, it’s a good time for us to revisit this topic and explore additional considerations when implementing a strategic plan. These are factors not always easily overcome, but acknowledging they exist, and how difficult they may be to resolve, is half the battle.

Organization structure

In my experience, federations are the most problematic structure to work with when it comes to strategic planning. The word federation derives from the Latin word for “covenant”, an agreement that some federation members seem perpetually happy to test. Granted, the problem is often with the people who work for a federation member rather than the structure itself.

The problem arises because the boards and staff of independent member organizations have the primary mandate to do their best work for the organization that employs them and the constituents they serve. Indeed, it may be in a member organization?s interest to see the federated organization fail with a specific initiative if the member organization then benefits.

Most federations have formal agreements to outline the role, in effect the value, of the federal tier. For example, in the case of a national federation, the national tier will engage in federal government relations, international relations, and national standards or branding. Similar arrangements exist for provincial federations (for example, focus on provincial government advocacy).

Although the roles are defined in agreements or founding documents, competitive forces nevertheless exist as constituent member groups within the federation vie for superior status or other advantage. It may be frustrating, but it is also understandable because of the rewards in question (for example, more revenue locally from a local program now adopted nationally). Competition becomes manifested in dueling position statements to the Ministry or disjointed brand presentation (for example, websites including logos and corporate colors may vary from member organization to member organization).

I have seen many examples at the regional and national levels where a member association decides it has better resources, better understanding, and better-than-anyone-else capabilities to forge into the arena on the issue that has specifically been understood to be the mandate of the federal tier.

Many in the nonprofit sector have witnessed how this looks: a Toronto association lobbies the federal government in competition with its national organization; an Alberta nonprofit decides to promote its education program as the national standard to other provinces in competition with a program of the national organization; a British Columbia association decides its marketing campaign looks much better than the nationally-approved one and seeks out other provinces to go along. All of this happens, even though the federation members specifically designate these matters as the role of the federal tier.

Federations are not the only structural impediment to strategic success, although they may be the most difficult to remedy.

I recall an association headquartered in Toronto that had two offices in the city. The emerging two solitudes and “we-and-they” behaviour of staff were predictable despite efforts by management to organize joint meetings and seamless inter-office communications. The reality was, the board had decided to have two offices and was not about to reverse the decision (the primary rationale was the money invested in leasehold improvements). In fact, this association took several years to harvest the political will to merge the two polarized offices.

Structure is not easily fixed; it takes time and many champions, and truly transformational change requires leadership by members. A starting point to necessary change is an honest discussion on why the organization consistently falters in realizing its objectives. Structural challenges are often mitigated by a strong commitment by, and clear communication on the distinct roles of, the key partners in an organization. This must be reinforced through orientation and perhaps even discipline for recalcitrant members.

The right skills

Participants in strategic planning workshops are often excited by the notion of what may be. There is excitement in the act of creating value. Objectives are set to raise membership, raise profile, raise influence, or to raise money.

The impediment to successful implementation is connecting the dots from what the organization?s leadership wants to see achieved and whether it has the human resource capabilities to realize success. The fact is that most organizations are essentially the same at the end of a strategic planning exercise as when they started it. “Who will take us to the mountaintop when we?ve never scaled it before?” may be the apt question when a new plan is created.

I have previously trumpeted the notion that “what is owned gets done”. However, assigning the responsibility for the result is insufficient if the person assigned the task does not have the ability to carry it out. It is a failure of leadership to set others up for downfall.

Too often in strategic planning, when the focus turns to implementation, organizational leaders think about who will carry out the task based on the position of the person assigned the job.

For example, it would be natural to think that a new educational initiative should rest with the Chair of the Education Committee and/or the Manager of Education. However, consider that the new initiative is for a brand new program in a language no volunteer or employee understands. The cost of translating words may be taken into account in the implementation plan, but what about cultural and language nuance? Here is an actual example from a neighbourhood Chinese restaurant?s English language menu that reflects the perils of literal translation: the menu heading for diet-related items is Choices for Fat Losers.

Sources for management competencies abound on the Internet, but typically they are high-level lists including “self-confidence” and “forward-thinking”. Boards and executive directors need to identify the practical experience (for example, pedagogical design of online adult education curriculum in French, Spanish, and Mandarin) needed to carry out a strategic plan initiative and who in the organization possesses them.

Where there is a gap, the organization needs a contingency plan to either help people acquire the competency, perhaps through training, or to find people who have what is needed, through hiring, to implement and realize the plan.

Detailed action planning

Detailed action planning is often an omission of management and not the board. The board of directors sets the strategy (vision, mission, goals, objectives, etc.) and delegates the implementation plan (strategies and actions) to staff.

The omission may not be intentional. Often those closest to a job feel they know what is needed to achieve a particular end without having to document the steps. For example, “drive to work” is something we know how to do. The challenge arises when someone else is doing it for the first time and the detailed steps are now needed.

Most action plans, where they do exist, have few implementation steps. The implementation steps for a membership campaign may be as simple as (1) write and print a brochure, (2) invite members by email to solicit a friend or colleague, (3) send welcome letter to new members with a 10% discount coupon for their first event. Yet are these adequate to carry out, and truly measure the success of, the initiative?

Priority planning is also an integral step to action planning. The individual responsible for execution should have met with their supervisor to discuss and agree on what is most important to do first.

Resource implications must also be understood. The person implementing the step needs to know the resources required to achieve the outcome and the supervisor needs to ensure the resources are provided.

In Strategic Planning for Nonprofit Organizations, authors Michael Allison and Jude Kaye explain that, “The more clarity you have regarding what activities are needed, who is involved, who is the prime mover (person responsible for overseeing/ensuring that an activity happens), what process you will use, by when it should be completed, and product to deliver, the more your planning process can be managed effectively and efficiently.”

Finally, organizations have a tendency to delegate most, if not all, of the to-do items to the executive director. While certainly the executive director should have operational responsibility, it is a mistake to identify one person as solely responsible for implementing the entire plan. Committee chairs, officers, staff directors or managers may all be highly competent and appropriate people to hold responsibility for the plan outcome they have been assigned and the means to realize the outcome.

Set targets

Plans that are not measurable are ineffective. Without hard measures of success, the risk is high that there will be disagreement on whether the plan has been achieved.

Targets are not only numeric. They need to include the completion date or milestones denoting progress.

Associations and charities tend to think activities such as advocacy, education, or even member satisfaction cannot be measured. Over the years, I have identified a long list of measurable outcomes in my work with nonprofits. Here is a sampling that provides clarity to boards, committees, executive directors, employees, members, funders and other stakeholders on what exactly is the target.

• Achieve a membership satisfaction score of 75% in the 2014 survey (from 72% in 2011).
• Develop and introduce one new professional development course offering online, each year.
• Secure two new financial partners at the platinum level ($10,000 each, per year, for three years) for each year of the plan (i.e., six new partners over the next three years).
• Increase attendance by voting members at the conference by 5% per year.
• Realize a member equity/cumulative reserve position of 50% of annual operating expenses by 2016.
• Provide at least one market research study on export opportunities for members in the sector.
• Deliver one event per year in each of Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, Alberta and British Columbia.
• Double the number of new volunteers serving on working groups within the organization over the period of the current plan (three years).

 

Reporting and updating

There needs to be an agreed upon process and frequency for reporting and reviewing actual results. Ideally there will also be agreement on the preferred reporting format, such as a balanced scorecard. A better practice, in my experience, is for there to be regular updates at each board meeting. These reports need not be overly detailed if they take a “dashboard” style approach; there are many resources for and templates of dashboards on the Internet. Staff meetings should also focus on the status of the assigned pieces of the plan.

Plans are also living documents. Reviews need to look at strategy first, and where changes in course are appropriate, the action plans will also need to be updated. Major events, whether economic, political or even internal (for example, a competing association is formed), require the board as well as staff leadership to evaluate, possibly adjust course, and create appropriate plans to capitalize on the opportunity. In the most effective organizations, these discussions are done proactively and the board sets aside time at regular intervals to understand the environment in which the organization operates and how strategic direction may need to change.

Planning requires discipline and there is wisdom in the counsel that leaders need to plan the work and work the plan. Planning is in fact an ongoing process and should not be confined to a workshop every three years.

Content is © Jack Shand and is reprinted with permission.

Jack Shand, CMC, CAE, is president of Leader Quest, a management consulting firm providing expert advice to not-for-profit organizations since 1997. Leader Quest specializes in executive search/staff recruitment, strategic planning, governance, and organizational reviews. Jack can be reached at 905-842-3845 and 1-877-929-4473, or jack-at-leaderquest-dot-com.