Surprising new approaches for non-profit planning
My eyes and ears are always looking for better ways to co-create strategy and planning. The idea of co-creation is that instead of giving out solutions from the top down, we explore both problems and solutions as a team.
I recently came across two popular, efficiency-improving approaches used in corporate settings that would translate well for the non-profit sector. The first was discussed by Arjan Singh on the HBR IdeaCast. The second came from the CIA’s World War II memo, which we at the Charity Change Collective used in our recent event. Each brings to life a different way of planning which exposes our weaknesses and helps us spot opportunities for change.
How to identify your problems: Sabotage your charity
At the Charity Change Summit I organised recently with my colleagues from the Charity Change Collective, we asked participants to engage in a strategic exercise called ‘Sabotage your charity’.
The idea is that you test out different scenarios to identify risk, predict failure and spot weakness. Essentially you try to hypothetically sink your own ship: sabotaging yourself to see how you might be sabotaged in future. You can then plan better, build mitigating strategies and spot opportunities to improve and make your ship watertight.
According to Arjan Singh, pharmaceutical companies are using this kind of planning method (he calls it ‘war games’) as an efficient way to stay relevant and maximise return on Research & Development investment.
So, what may be holding organisations back from trying this efficient strategic method? First of all: time. Tell senior management you need them in a room for two days straight and it might take you two years to make it happen. But, slowing down and giving everyone enough time to think is important. It contributes to psychological safety and creates buy-in. And according to Arjan Singh, organisations who do make the time for this exercise leave asking why they didn’t do so sooner.
Second: priorities. So much non-profit planning is driven by budget: matching your plans to the budget you have rather than organisational needs or, most importantly, external market trends. Our supporters are exposed to those trends and change their behaviours as a result. So, holding an annual ‘Sabotage your charity’ planning session will help non-profits keep up.
The method works best when you get stakeholders in the room. With so many voices fighting to be heard, design thinking helps to reach conclusions and outputs. The idea is that to tackle a problem, first, we need to go wide, getting loads of ideas. Then it’s time to prioritise and focus on one or two that will make the biggest difference to the issue we are discussing. The ideas which will move the dial. This is the diamond model of divergence and convergence: broadening your thoughts to later narrow them down. Together.
How to solve your problems: a human-centred approach
In my experience, non-profits won’t have a problem in involving lots of people in the first stage, casting our net wide for ideas in the strategic planning process. But organisations tend to close ranks during the prioritisation process, leaving this up to senior team members. So, after being involved in invigorating discussions on different ideas and options, the next thing staff hear is what management has decided. And it may or may not follow a logic they understand. Just reading this makes my energy flop. And I bet it's the same for employees who went through this kind of strategy process.
If your team is part of the prioritisation process too, they’re more likely to understand how prioritisation happened. And, because they had a role in the process, they’re more likely to feel accountable for the delivery.
Culture is often a big obstacle here. Opening the floor to the entire staff takes courage. Inviting discussions around what needs work takes bravery. It can be hard for senior people to take criticism. It can feel like you’re unleashing disagreements and nitpicking. We all worry that there’s going to be someone in the room taking tips from the CIA’s World War II memo for how to disrupt workplace productivity 🙂.
The road to human-centred strategising
Is this easy? No. It will be messy. There’s a jumble of opinions and experiences to hear and sort through. Instead of senior leaders hearing a no and going ahead anyway, the whole team has a vote. And every no must be accompanied by an alternative proposal. You’re rewriting the rules on how you have discussions as an organisation. It might take a few sessions, but people learn to think twice before they disagree and come with a more constructive mindset. I find a lot of inspiration on how to do this in the team core protocols by Richard Kasperowski.
And not only do the rules on how you have discussions change, but also how you make decisions. Instead of hearing everyone’s opinions and then letting just a few people decide the whole organisation’s priorities, the whole group gets to prioritise collectively. What makes a difference, especially at first, is great facilitation.
Try it! You might be surprised. People will agree much more than you might imagine. And they’re more sensible than you think.
What do you reckon? Have you tried something like this? Let me know!
