What’s That About Root Causes?

A Contemporary Fable: Upstream/Downstream

It's been many years since the first body was spotted in the river. Some old-timers remember how spartan were the facilities and procedures for managing that sort of thing. Sometimes, they say, it would take hours to pull ten people from the river, and even then only a few would survive. Though the number of victims in the river has increased greatly in recent years, the good folks of Downstream have responded admirably to the challenge. Their rescue system is clearly second to none: most people discovered in the swirling waters are reached within 20 minutes, many in less than ten. Only a small number drown each day before help arrives; a big improvement from the way it used to be.

Talk to the people of Downstream and they'll speak with pride about the new hospital by the edge of the waters, the flotilla of rescue boats ready for service at a moment's notice, the comprehensive health plans for coordinating all the manpower involved, and the large number of highly trained and dedicated swimmers always ready to risk their lives to save victims from the raging currents. Sure it costs a lot, but, say the Downstreamers, what else can decent people do except to provide whatever it takes when human lives are at stake.

Oh, a few people in Downstream have raised the question now and again, but most folks show little interest about what's happening Upstream. It seems there's so much to do to help those in the river, that nobody's got time to check how all those bodies are getting there in the first place. That's the way things are, sometimes. (Thanks to Linda Sunde for sharing this version)

The Hard Work of Getting to the Real Strategic Issues

We typically utilize an issues based approach to strategic planning. In this approach, after gathering and analyzing internal and external data, leadership identifies 3 to 5 "most critical strategic issues, choices and challenges" facing the nonprofit. The remainder of the planning process looks at developing the most effective responses to these critical issues.

Critical issues are fundamental policy or program concerns that define the most important situations and choices a nonprofit faces now and in the future. Critical issues can reflect long-standing problems in the nonprofit, the community served or recent events that are anticipated to have a significant impact on the nonprofit and/or community served. Critical issues can also reflect major shifts in thinking that challenge "business as usual.” The selection of issues is important because it determines range of decisions the nonprofit will consider in the future.

In some instances, the nonprofit is already aware of the critical issues that the strategic planning process must help it address. In most situations, the planning process participants discern critical strategic issues as they work on the external, market and internal assessments.

Real differences of opinion will likely surface when everyone begins to express their sense of what the real critical issues are. It's important to engage members of the planning team in deep discussion to get at the roots of any disagreement. Sometimes it will be possible to define the issue in a way that addresses the concerns of all involved. Sometimes, what appeared to be disagreement at first, is not, after people really listen to each other. Just be careful of watering down the issue to make peace. By definition, critical issues are controversial.

In the effort to identify the short list of most critical issues needing to be tackled in the strategic planning process, sometimes you will discover tension points. An example – for a hunger action organization, the tension between "should we focus on feeding hungry people today" or "should we focus on longer-term organizing and public policy strategies to address the root causes of hunger". Sometimes the answer is one and not the other and sometimes it's some form of "both/and".

This all-important process of surfacing and working through deep differences of opinion about what the critical issues are and how to best articulate them is made more difficult when people speak in code to each other. Let me show you what I mean by telling you about organization I once worked with. This organization was a group that provided cable access to a small suburban community. Within the group there were two factions that would set each other off with their respective battle cries. On one hand, there was a group that was ardent on the subject of First Amendment freedom. They wanted anyone in the community that had a message to have easy access to cable technology. For them, First Amendment freedom had to be protected at all costs. On the other hand, there was a group that felt strongly that program quality had to be increased if they were going to build an audience of cable viewers that would assure continued existence of the community cable access channel.

But here's where the problem came in: when the program quality group heard the others talk about First Amendment freedom, it conjured up images of controversial cable programs that were sloppily done that would offend the community. At the same time the First Amendment group, when they heard the others talk about the need to increase program quality, this conjured up for them images of censorship -- programs being kept off the air. The words "first amendment" became code for poor quality controversial programs. At the same time, the words "quality programs" became code for program censorship. It was important for this tension point to be surfaced. A thorough discussion led the leaders of this group to eventually realize that the organization in fact needed to be both an advocate for First Amendment freedom and quality programming that would build a solid audience. A situation of both/and instead of either/or. Group members also realized that the organization needed to strengthen the orientation and training program for new video producers to ensure programs of quality that would attract larger audiences in the future.

In this example, deciphering each other's code words set the stage for a real breakthrough in the strategic planning process.

Core Strategy #5 Develop Board And Staff Succession Plans

In an earlier post, I listed 10 key strategies that need consideration in the strategic plans of nonprofit organizations. The first strategy described in that post is “Embed capacity building into the fabric of your nonprofit". The second strategy is to "Build an exceptional board". The third strategy discussed in my last post is to engage in accelerated strategic thinking and planning. The fourth strategy is to "Forge partnerships, alliances and mergers to increase mission impact and sustainability".

The fifth strategy is to develop board and staff succession plans. A change in executive leadership is one of the most important and challenging opportunities a nonprofit will face. These executive leadership transitions have become more common. According research compiled by the Annie E Casey Foundation, leadership transitions from the Baby Boom generation to Generations X and Y will become more common within the nonprofit sector. Owing to these demographic and other factors, the number of executive director jobs that will turn over is therefore expected to increase. The recession has put off retirement for many older executive directors, at least for a while. But retirement or career moves by executive directors aren't the only cause for concern. Sudden absences due to illness, accidents or death also put many nonprofits at risk. Many nonprofits are highly dependent on their executive directors. If there were an unplanned absence, the organization would continue to exist without her or his presence, but very likely experience some significant setbacks.

The problem is that many nonprofits don't have succession plans in place; even more nonprofits have not begun to think about succession in an organized manner. A nonprofit organization's strategic planning process can present a golden opportunity to finally respond to this critical issue. The good news: over the last several years many excellent resources have become available. Some of the most important work has been done by The Bridgespan Group in Boston and Compass Point Nonprofit Services in the Bay Area. The Annie E Casey Foundation has published a series of monographs on all aspects of succession planning and executive transition available at no charge at their website. One of the most important, "Stepping Up, Staying Engaged: Succession Planning and Executive Transition Management for Nonprofit Boards of Directors" is geared to boards of directors who have an important governance responsibility to lead on this critical issue.

Another valuable resource is Executive Transition Initiative Succession Planning Toolkit. The Toolkit was developed by the Milwaukee-based Executive Transition Institute (ETI) directed by Mindy Lubar Price, CEO of LeadingTransitions. The ETI is a collaborative effort of the Donors Forum of Wisconsin, the Brico Fund, the Davis Family Foundation, and the Greater Milwaukee Foundation. The Toolkit consists of four manuals

· #1 Overview of Succession Planning

· #2 Departure Defined Transition Toolkit

· #3 Emergency Succession Planning Toolkit

· #4 Strategic Leadership Development Toolkit

Now for many of the same reasons, there needs to be a leadership succession plan for the board of directors as well. There are not as many resources available to help with board succession planning but here is an excellent one to consider:

· Succession Planning with Your Board with links to a number of worksheets and tools prepared by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)

A Hybrid Board Governance Model that Supports Strategic Planning

In previous posts, I’ve emphasized the close link between strategic planning and governing board development. Strategic thinking and planning is at the heart of what it means to serve on a nonprofit board. We therefore need a governance framework that fosters and supports a strategic planning mindset among board directors.

But there is a problem: What’s the right approach to board governance? There are a dizzying number of governance models that have emerged over the last several years and an equally dizzying number of valiant efforts to categorize and sort out the main models. (For one summary of major governance models complied by a former school superintendent, see the article “From Stewardship To Leadership”) At the same time there is broad emerging agreement about the core qualities of effective boards. These core qualities are summarized in a quote from Mel Gill, president of Synergy Associates:

There is a growing convergence of expert opinion that the most effective boards, regardless of the size, complexity or mandate of their organizations, concentrate their attention on those matters that are crucial to success or survival; that they focus on measurable results within defined timetables; that they engage in regular monitoring of the manner in which business is conducted, the efficient use of resources and the achievement of objectives; that their decision-making is transparent, and that they provide proper accounting to key stakeholders.

Effective boards focus their attention on "the critical few, rather than the trivial many", regardless of whether these are operational, management, or governance (strategic or fiduciary) issues.

The most successful boards, within this framework, develop a collaborative partnership with senior management; seek agreement between key stakeholders on vision, values, goals and expectations (tempered by the reality of available resources); ensure clarity with respect to roles and responsibilities; establish constructive processes for resolution of conflicts and conflict of interest; and cultivate an organizational culture characterized by trust, teamwork, mutual respect, flexibility, adaptability, and responsiveness in the face of the ever-changing realities, resources and needs of consumers.

Gill also talks about "dynamic hybrids” -- increasingly boards are developing dynamic hybrids of several board types, adapting concepts and practices that best fit their particular circumstances.

In response to this "dizzying array" of models and approaches, I propose that we draw on the following three resources as we think about the governance model, systems and practices that can serve as the foundation and the framework for board development work:

• Dynamic Board Model from McKinsey & Company
• 12 Governance Principles That Power Exceptional Boards from BoardSource
• Governance as Leadership Framework from the book by the same name -- Governance as Leadership by Richard Chait, William Ryan, and Barbara Taylor

Taken together, they provide a solid framework that supports the strategic mindset I spoke of earlier. For more information about these three excellent resources, go to the article “A Hybrid Board Governance Model”.