About Bob Bob serves as President and CEO of GuideStar and serves on the boards of Vision TV, Grameen Foundation USA, and the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. More...
About GuideStar GuideStar gathers and publicizes information about nonprofits. We advocate that nonprofits share information openly and completely. Any nonprofit we track can update its report for free. More...
|
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on March 20th, 2012, in these categories: Nonprofit PracticeIt takes too long to get things done in the nonprofit sector.
Since most nonprofits are small businesses, with few layers of bureaucracy, you would think we would be faster than the private sector. But it doesn’t often feel that way. Why is that? We’re pretty much in charge of the decision-making and we don’t have a lot of “they’s” to blame. Some of the reasons include the fact we’re undercapitalized and too much funding is restricted for project-only work. Nonprofit boards are often ill-equipped to deal with our issues and either lack business skills or awkwardly try to apply their big business experience to our issues. But I think some of the reason is we lack a sense of urgency to get a project completed.
Last year we launched the GuideStar Labs as one of our efforts to test and launch products quicker. Under the direction of Deyan Vitanov, we go through a rapid testing process and make a go/no-go decision within a matter of weeks. You can read more about it here on my blog.
 Eric Ries, author of The Lean Startup The Labs were partly inspired by our commitment to Agile process for software development. I’ve come to realize that Agile is not just for developing software, but is a process that can be applied to many spheres of our organization. In his great book The Lean Startup, Eric Ries writes that the most important step in any project is to get something in the hands of customers/clients as soon as possible and start learning from them. He calls his three steps Build-Measure-Learn. Take small pieces of a product or project, he urges. Share it with potential customers and measure their feedback. What did they like? What did they feel is missing? Learn from what you’ve heard, make some adjustments and start all over again. Unlike a traditional strategic planning or market research process, this approach will be rooted in actual feedback on what is working rather than anticipated.
Ries urges us to recognize that the Build-Measure-Learn process is part of a very structured process. He doesn’t think being an innovative entrepreneur means having an undisciplined, just-do-it attitude. Justthe opposite. He says “entrepreneurship is a kind of management… that requires a managerial discipline to harness the entrepreneurial opportunity.” He thinks the key is all establishing a way for learning – and the sooner the better operating within a “culture and system” that allows teams to innovate at a high speed. The learning helps find a synthesis between our vision and what customers will accept.
Too much nonprofit sector management today is stuck in rigid techniques, standardized work tasks and an overemphasis on strategic planning. The Lean Startup identifies another principle that should resonate with all nonprofit leaders: the value of our people. Reis urges us to realize that all of our employees can be entrepreneurs. As he puts it: Innovation is a bottoms-up, decentralized and unpredictable thing, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be managed.”
How do you incorporate the entrepreneurial spirit into your nonprofit?
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on March 13th, 2012, in these categories: Nonprofit Leadership | Nonprofit PracticeIn my last blog I wrote about the public pressure building for the IRS to move faster on awarding 501(c)(4) designation to politically active organizations. I urged the IRS to move cautiously and take the time to make sure these organizations truly meet the test to not be “primarily political.”
This past week’s newspapers reported on another assault on the integrity of the nonprofit sector. The stockholders of the Cato Institute, the Washington-based libertarian think tank, are in a battle over control. No, the term stockholders is not a mistake. Cato is governed by four people, each with a 25 percent stake in the organization. The governance stakes can be bought and sold for cash. Governance stakes that can be bought and sold? I’ll have to admit, that’s a first for me. According to Saturday’s Washington Post, the provisions are permissible under Kansas state law but generally frowned on by the IRS, which must make the final determination about the tax-exempt status of the organization.
 Charles and David Koch, courtesy of weirddream.com The issue here isn’t profit, but control. Cato was started by Charles and David Koch, the Kansas-based billionaire brothers, in the 1970s. With the death of one of the four stockholders, they want to take on a larger stake of the governance. How does selling board seats and control of the organization square with the requirements of a nonprofit institution and a reason for obtaining tax-exempt status? And how is it that a funder – even if they are a founder – can literally control the nonprofit?
This is not some little organization that doesn’t matter. Cato has over 100 full-time staff, plus roughly 100 visiting or adjunct scholars. It has an operating budget of more than $30 million and is working on a capital campaign in the tens of millions. Donations to this stockholder-owned nonprofit organization are tax-deductible.
This is one decision the IRS needs to get right for the sake of the entire nonprofit sector.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on March 9th, 2012, in these categories: Government | Nonprofit PracticeThe Associated Press reported on Thursday that many within the tea party, as well as other conservative groups, are claiming that the Internal Revenue Service is taking too long to award them tax-exempt status.
I say good work IRS. Take as long as you need and be very, very cautious and demanding before you award any more 501(c) (4) exemptions.
These most recent complaints are coming from those who claim the IRS is “purposely frustrating” their efforts to gain 501(c)(4) status as “social welfare” groups whose “mission is to promote the common good.” Lots of nonprofit organizations have a (c)(4) or operate as one and engage in some effort to influence political activity. It’s the extent of that political activity and whether they are indeed political parties and not just occasional political advocates providing information that is at issue here.
 Beverly & Pack/Flickr I’m sure that part of the reason for the caution of the IRS is the rise of the Super PACS that are exercising so much influence currently in the Republican primaries and are gearing up for the fall. In the days before Citizens United, political action committees (PACs) were limited to $5,000 contributions and could pass the money directly to whatever party or candidate they chose. The new Super PACS can raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, individuals and labor unions, but they must be independent of the candidates, even though they’re usually run by friends or associates of the candidates. Like the old PACS, Super PACS are required to make the names of their donors public – although it can sometimes be months after the donation has actually been made. However, donors to 501(c)(4)s are not required to be made public. Increasingly we’re starting to see donations flow from the (c)(4)s to the Super PACS, thereby avoiding disclosure. After all, why disclose a donor’s name when you can avoid it by making the donation through a (c)(4)?
This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. Both parties are getting into the Super PAC game full time. I’m one of those who believe that all this money pouring into politics is not good for our fragile democracy. It‘s going to take a while to figure out what can be done, if anything, to slow down the money train. In the meantime, I would encourage the IRS to be rigorous in not only awarding new (c)(4)s but to keep a closer eye over existing (c)(4)s to make sure they are complying with IRS regulations. Secondly, I’d like to see the IRS change the regulations and begin requiring full disclosure of all donors to (c)(4)s. That seems to the bare minimum when it comes to showing transparency and accountability.
I realize these recommendations run the risk of getting thousands of small Rotary clubs, volunteer fire departments, veterans organizations, etc., caught in the net when new regulations are imposed on (c)(4)s . Absent a restructuring of what it even means to be a (c)(4), this may be the price we have to pay for closing this enormous loophole.
If you have responsibility for running a nonprofit organization, you should care about this issue. All this political activity and money flow in the name of a “nonprofit organization” further confuses the public about just what it means to be a nonprofit organization. Is it merely a designation for avoiding taxes and hiding from public inspection, or do we stand on principles about how we serve the public good?
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on January 30th, 2012, in these categories: Charting Impact | Nonprofit Practice It’s no secret that GuideStar has long been at the forefront of the discussion on nonprofit transparency and accountability, and now we’re taking a hard look at the issue of nonprofit impact. We partnered with Independent Sector and BBB Wise Giving Alliance on the Charting Impact initiative, which I’ve blogged about before.
And now, two sections of our new Quick View summary at the top of our nonprofit reports can help people determine a nonprofit’s impact. Check out my video about on our YouTube page: http://youtu.be/rLahr7qBShw.
How do you measure nonprofit impact?
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on December 16th, 2011, in these categories: Nonprofit PracticeThis past Monday I hosted a webinar with Mario Morino, co-founder and chairman of Venture Philanthropy Partners and chairman of the Morino Institute. His career spans more than 40 years as entrepreneur, technologist, and civic and business leader. He also has a long history of civic engagement and philanthropy in the National Capital Region and more recently in Northeast Ohio. Mario recently released a book called Leap of Reason. You can listen to the webinar or see the slides here. After the webinar, I had a chance to follow up with Mario.
1. Why did you write the book Leap of Reason?
I decided to write the book, which is available for free, as a way of encouraging every nonprofit board to have some hard, rock-the-boat conversations about this era of scarcity and how to prepare for a very different fiscal reality.
We’ve gotten some very nice responses to the book—and there are now more than 25,000 copies in circulation. One colleague had a blunt take on why there’s so much interest: “The book is ok. The timing is great.” I think he’s probably right. Nonprofit leaders know their world around them is changing, and their funding is under pressure like never before. This book offers practical advice on how to manage with more rigor and discipline in this very difficult era.
2. So much charitable giving comes from the heart—a call for help in time of need or for causes that evoke passion. Do you expect all charitable giving to be focused on outcomes?
No, I don’t. Part of my giving is from the heart or from a sense of obligation to a friend or colleague. And I don’t lose any sleep over that. My plea is for foundations and donors and governments to give an increasing share of their gifts based on reason, while never losing their strong sense of passion.
3. In the book you say, “Technology is not the decisive factor in whether organizations make the transition to managing to outcomes and raise their impact. Far more important is the mindset of the leaders who put these systems in place.” Please describe that mindset and culture. Can you give some examples of where you’ve seen it in action?
Since the book’s release, I’ve had the honor of visiting a series of stellar organizations around the country that have this mindset and culture, including the Strive Partnership, Youth Villages, Roca, and Congreso. The leaders of all of these organizations have embraced rigorous information collection and use not because it’s “important,” not because it’s a trend or a good marketing tool, and not because a funder or investor said they had to. They do it because they believe it to be integral to ensuring material, measurable, and
sustainable good for those they serve.
Good leaders in any sector—nonprofit, for-profit, or public—who have a performance mindset want to augment good intentions and intuition with the best data they can get their hands on. They can’t sleep at night when they don’t know whether they’re on course to achieve the results they seek. They’re obsessed with finding ways of doing what they do even better.
4. What is one take-away that a nonprofit leader can do today to start managing to outcomes?
I’m happy to answer the question, but I don’t want anyone to think that managing to outcomes can be accomplished quickly with a simple, 10-step process. Managing to outcomes is a quantum leap for most organizations and involves significant culture change. It is not about implementing a cookie-cutter set of best practices.
That said, I would encourage people to look at the “Ideas Into Action” section of the book, which begins on page 63. That section provides a set of questions that boards and leadership teams should ask themselves to gauge their readiness and capacity for doing the hard work of making significant culture change.
5. GuideStar’s goal is to encourage information- and data-driven decision making from donors, nonprofit organizations, advisors to the sector, etc. What data or other information should we be asking nonprofits to supply us that we can share with the public?
I’m a long-time fan of GuideStar and was pleased to see the Charting Impact initiative you’re engaged in with Independent Sector and BBB/Wise Giving Alliance. But I think we need to do more to help you make performance data—not just operational and financial data—available on the nonprofits you profile. In a changing world in which funders increasingly ask to see outcomes and impact information, the nonprofits that voluntarily share it would have a strong comparative advantage. The organizations that were not
inclined to provide it would stand out for their lack of an outcomes culture and transparency. And voluntary reporting of outcomes information need not be highly sophisticated to be valuable.
6. GuideStar also wants to drive the most money to high-performing nonprofits since they are making the most difference. How does managing to outcomes ensure that a nonprofit is high-performing?
I believe that high performance requires nonprofits to:
- gain clarity on what change they are trying to create;
- gain specificity on how they will accomplish that change;
- determine what information (quantitative and qualitative) will be most helpful for gauging whether they are on course to achieve that change;
- collect and use this information to plan, make important decisions, track, course-correct, and improve; and
- combine all of the above with good judgment and keen discernment.
These are the core elements of managing to outcomes.
It’s possible that there are organizations that are not doing these things and yet are making a real difference for those they serve. In my experience, these practices are truly prerequisites for high performance and impact. At an absolute minimum, it is difficult to imagine an organization demonstrating to funders and other stakeholders that it is a high performer without engaging in these core elements of managing to outcomes.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on November 16th, 2011, in these categories: Charting Impact | Nonprofit Practice Carla Javits, president of REDF I spent some time at the Social Enterprise Alliance Annual Summit in Chicago and was fortunate to hear a keynote speech from Carla Javits, the president of REDF, The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund, a California-based venture philanthropy organization that invests in nonprofit-run businesses called “social enterprises.”
In her remarks, Carla reviewed her six characteristics of what it takes to be a successful organization – and I would add a high-performing one. I think they are very thought- provoking and I’d like to share them with you:
1. Clarity about the size and scope of the problem you are addressing. In other words, what are you trying to solve? This is a nice clear way to describe your work and I like the way she has added something about the market and the extent of the issue. In Charting Impact, we ask people to clearly and concisely state their organization’s ultimate goal for intended impact by answering the question “What is your organization aiming to accomplish?”
2. There must be an appetite for risk. High-performing organizations need be bold and make a difference. That’s not possible unless as leaders we are willing to go beyond our traditional safe borders and try new approaches to tackle persistent problems.
3. Development of Evidence. As we undertake our work, we need to demonstrate a willingness to measure results in order to improve our work. In Charting impact we ask people to describe their organization’s strategies for accomplishing their long-term goals by answering the questions “What are your strategies for making this happen?” and “What have and haven’t you accomplished so far?”
4. Network Effect. I liked this one – it’s not something we think enough about. To be successful we need to build partnerships, rather than go it alone, with funders, other nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders in our community.
5. Persistence. It takes years to succeed. At the same time, never settle – always be impatient. Our work is essential.
6. Communicate our Progress. Our communities, our funders, and the people we serve need to know how we are doing. As a sector, we need to do a better job of sharing our successes, failures and ambitions. That’s the only way to get people involved in our work.
Carla was also asked to share her metrics for measuring the effectiveness and impact of her work. She gave four:
1. Our clients. What happens to the people we serve as the result of our work? (Can they expect more jobs, less homelessness, etc.)
2. Organizations. What does it take to be a healthy nonprofit? What are the benchmarks for what it takes to be a viable, sustainable organization? (clients, revenues, etc.)
3. Enterprise. The big picture. What are our long-term objectives? (jobs created, profitability, etc.)
4. Impact on Society. As our result what can we tell society about the impact of our work? (fewer people going back to prison, saving tax dollars, more economic development, etc.
By the way, Carla thinks social enterprises offer a good antidote to the frustrations being expressed by movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. She points out that social enterprises have vision, ideals, and values for social good but balance those ideals with well-run institutions, with sound business models, a goal of self reliance and a focus on delivering evidence based results that create economic mobility. She thinks it is our moment to make a difference in a big way.
What do you think?
For more information about Charting Impact, please visit http://www.chartingimpact.org/.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on November 1st, 2011, in these categories: GuideStar | Nonprofit PracticeI recently spoke in Chicago before the Feeding America annual conference. Feeding America is the nation’s leading domestic  hunger-relief charity, with more than 200 member food banks serving all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Joining me to talk about the importance of transparency and accountability in our demanding world were Art Taylor from the BBB Wise Giving Alliance and Ken Berger of Charity Navigator. The local member food bank staffers were attentive and truly concerned about providing the appropriate data to meet donor expectations. By the way, unlike many nonprofit organizations, the food banks unanimously told me that their fundraising is up so far this year. That’s good to hear.
The event gave me an opportunity to learn more about my hosts. According to Janet Gibbs, Feeding America’s Chief Financial Officer, will deliver more than 3 billion pounds of food and groceries this year. The national organization sets quality standards and acts as an interconnection system for donations of food and money. The actual delivery of food to hungry Americans occurs through the local food bank, or partner food bank agencies, like soup kitchen and pantries, which are all separate organizations with local boards and staffs. The relationship between many nonprofit national headquarters and the local affiliates are frequently a point of tension. A well known national brand dependent on local delivery often leads to uneven quality of services. Feeding America has dealt with this by trying to clearly identify where both the national and local organizations add value. Here is a chart from their website:
|
Securing Food
|
| Local Role: Secure food from local manufacturers, retailers, farmers and government sources. |
National Role: Secure food from large corporate manufacturers and retailers through nationwide initiatives and facilitate the acquisition of government-supplied
food. |
|
Raising Funds
|
| Local Role: Acquire funding from local corporate, foundation and individual donors, and utilize those funds efficiently to maximize service to people in need. |
National Role: Acquire funding from corporate, foundation and individual donors, and provide those funds as seed money to spur local innovation. |
|
Distributing Food
|
| Local Role: Distribute food received from Feeding America and local sources to people in need, via a local system of agencies. |
National Role: Through a robust logistics system, distribute food donations received nationally to the food banks that need them the most. |
|
Sharing Best Practices
|
| Local Role: Share wisdom with other network members and uphold the highest standards for food safety, fiscal responsibility and efficiency. |
National Role: Inspire members to implement proven programs and uphold the highest standards for food safety, fiscal responsibility and efficiency. |
|
Advocating and Inspiring
|
| Local Role: Create a local movement and a sense of compassionate urgency, encouraging better government programs and inspiring individuals to take action. |
National Role: Create a national movement and a sense of compassionate urgency, encouraging better government programs and inspiring individuals to take action. |
The fact that anyone in the United States one of the richest country’s ever to exist on this planet, should lack access to food is a national disgrace. It’s something that personally troubles me greatly. Yet, according to Feeding America, one of out every six Americans is considered food insecure, meaning they live at risk of hunger. Only about 10 percent of Feeding America’s clients are homeless and over a third have at least one working adult in their household. According to USDA, 17 million children live in “food insecure” households.
As a society, we should be doing better. Americans can help end hunger by donating, advocating and volunteering. To find out more about Feeding America, visit www.feedingamerica.org. For more about nonprofits working on nutrition and health, visit our Take Action page, which comes equipped with expert reviews from Philanthropedia: http://takeaction.guidestar.org/Causes.aspx?cause=Childhood%20Nutrition%20Health%20%28U.S.%29.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on October 20th, 2011, in these categories: GuideStar | Human Resources | Nonprofit PracticeI was recently the keynote speaker at the Nonprofit Human Resources Conference at the Gaylord Conference Center.
Due to the recession, the job of the nonprofit human resources director is tougher than ever. Today’s financial environment is causing anxiety and uncertainty. This is a time for lots of communication about the state of the organization, particularly revenue issues and prospects for the future. There is considerable talk about transparency to the outside world and to stakeholders, but transparency within an organization is just as important and is often overlooked.
In my talk I urged the human resources directors to embrace adaptability—something I’ve come to believe is one of the keys to effective leadership. When revenues are crashing and the future is gloomy, this is not the time to stubbornly hold on to the ways things have always been done. In fact, it can be a liberating experience to start saying “no more” and to start exploring brand new approaches.
In most nonprofit organizations, personnel costs are roughly 50 percent or more of total expenses. That’s a lot of money. But we often don’t think about carefully nurturing our people resources the same way we do with managing financial resources or IT resources.
Last year at GuideStar we developed a Human Capital Strategy with the tremendous help of Sal Giambanco of the Omidyar Network.
We started by confirming our mission, strategy and goals, and reviewing our desired impacts.
This led to a discussion of the organizational impact of our work and our business strategy. How were we going to accomplish what we said we wanted to do? What are our services? What is our business model?
And then finally, we reviewed what kind of talent we needed to attract, engage and retain in order to deliver on these mission and business promises. Here’s a graphical depiction:
 Image courtesy of Omidyar Network An organization’s business strategy is driven by numerous dynamic factors:
– external market factors that create demand and shape the competitive environment for products and services
– organizational factors include core competencies, products, structure and composition of the management team, the cultural and political environment within the organization
– people factors include leadership and management competencies, the ability of the organization to develop and retain
talent
An organization’s Human Capital strategy – that is, the people side of business design is centered on the selection, deployment, motivation, and management of people and is ultimately one of the most important key drivers of business success. Jim Collins terms this “do we have the right people on the bus?”
Remember this: almost any significant changes in market dynamics or business design will require changes
in a firm’s Human Capital strategy.
Finally, the HR function delivers a range of consulting and program administrative services based on the organization’s needs.
HR’s service delivery strategy must be:
– responsive to the organization’s business strategy
– explicitly aligned to support the implementation of the organization’s human capital strategy
– should be “owned” by the CEO or COO
What is your human capital strategy?
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on October 10th, 2011, in these categories: GuideStar | Nonprofit Practice I went to the SOCAP conference in San Francisco this year and left feeling a little uneasy. While it’s exciting to think about new capital being generated for attacking social problems, most of the talk sounded as if using nonprofit vehicles as a way to attack long standing problems is no longer effective or what is needed.
First, some background. Here’s how SOCAP describes their work: “A new form of capitalism is arising that recognizes our ability to direct the power and efficiency of market systems toward social impact, leading to a more balanced set of ‘returns.’ SOCAP is a multi-platform organization dedicated to the flow of capital towards social good. Our event series connects leading global innovators – investors, foundations, institutions and social entrepreneurs – to build this market at the intersection of money and meaning.”
Much of the talk was about making lots of profits while working towards social good. This description from Forbes caught my eye: “Gordon Gekko could very well be intrigued. Given the battering Wall Street has had recently with downgrades, debt ceiling crises and drops in the Dow, even the crude capitalist might consider the benefits of
social capital markets. He might even consider spending the next several days at San Francisco’s Fort Mason Center where over a thousand will gather in an effort to move social capital markets into the mainstream. Organized by Kevin Doyle Jones, a former Forbes writer, SoCap as it has been dubbed, is the annual gathering of social entrepreneurs and investors eager to generate – as well as show – that doing good has bottom-lines: social and financial.”
I frequently heard the argument during the conference that today’s social problems are so big that they require efforts from both for-profit and nonprofit approaches. I wholeheartedly agree with that general approach, although it does make me wonder how this is actually going to work. For one, how would nonprofits and for-profit funders and organizations coordinate their work efficiently and effectively? The Omidyar Network is a great example of a funder who actually funds both: investing in for-profits and providing grants to nonprofits. But how many other examples can you think of? Most funders lack the expertise to invest in for-profits and the number using vehicles like program-related invesments (PRIs) is quite low.
The thought of having more money pouring in to help fight social problems is an attractive one. With government funding declining, and foundation and individual support lagging, many of us are exploring alternatives. But how much money is really available? In her recent blog about the new book Impact Investing by Bugg-Levine and Emerson, who were featured at SOCAP, Lucy Bernholz has this important observation:
Impact investors lead their movement with an emphasis on return, measurement, and accountability. They aim to bring the best of financial practice to bear on the toughest of shared social problems. So far, so good. But why, why, can’t they tell us how big they are? How much money is available for impact investing? How much of it is new money that otherwise would not have been available to produce social outcomes and how much of it is being directed from existing resources for social good? Without such a benchmark, with all its necessary caveats, it’s hard to know how much these tools and ideas matter. But the greatest promise of impact investing, in my mind, is its potential to draw in actual new money for social problem solving. If it does this, impact investing will be transformational. If billions of dollars that would not otherwise have been available for social value production are brought to bear on our shared social issues, that will matter. It would be the first financial innovation in a century, since the creation of the modern foundation, to attract game changing quantities of private resources to public problem solving.
To some, nonprofits funded by foundation and individual donations are passé – no longer relevant or an effective way to tackle serious social issues. There was at least one nonprofit I know at the conference actively exploring whether to change into a for-profit because they thought there were more possibilities for raising capital. Before we get too carried away with the next best thing, I’d like to have a more serious exploration in the foundation community about how we can get more capital to high-performing, sustainable – and seasoned – nonprofits before we conclude for-profit approaches are the better way to go.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on September 14th, 2011, in these categories: GuideStar | Nonprofit PracticeIn my last blog I considered the word “adaptability” and “resilience” and how they apply to running a high-performing nonprofit organization.
Today I want to share some of the things I learned from a book called Flip! By Peter Sheahan, who I got to know about at the
 Peter Sheahan, author of Flip! recent ASAE conference where I led a workshop with Eileen Johnson, Esq., Partner, Whiteford,
Taylor & Preston LLP, and George Constantine, Esq., partner, Venable LLP. Sheahan basic premise is that today’s world “requires new perspectives on strategy, operations, customers and staff. Most of all it requires a level of flexibility that has previously been considered a weakness in some organizations.”
Sheahan urges us to take an action orientation because “your best work does not happen when you are planning. Your best work happens when you are in the flow.”
It sounds a lot like Agile software development, doesn’t it? Remember plan/adapt/plan/adapt.
So, how do we make sure we’re not off on some wild goose chase?
Sheahan says it’s time “we let go of our obsession with detailed strategy” and instead have a broad view, or trajectory, that compels us forward. “It should be flexible enough to absorb changes in market conditions and completely new technologies and products. The key is to map out how you are going to get there only in the broadest strokes… Be flexible in your approach, prepared to unlearn and let go of what no longer supports your ability to move toward your vision, and learn new skills and behaviors quickly that will take you to your goal.”
This makes a lot of sense to me. It fits the “adaptability” concept we’ve been exploring these last few weeks. But using big picture thinking to set a trajectory still means we are heading in a certain direction.
And then there is this final thought from Sheahan: “allow the ambiguity that comes with it to excite you rather than scare you.” Good words to live by.
|
