Showing posts with label Harvard Business Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harvard Business Review. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Strategic Planning for Foundations: Get Clear, Get Real, and Get Better (Post #3)

In the November 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, an article entitled “Galvanizing Philanthropy” by Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan J. Colby asks all foundation leaders to get clear, get real, and get better at philanthropic investment. This is the LAST of three posts on the article.

Third: How can we improve our results over time? (Getting better)

Improving results and getting better takes the development of a culture of continual improvement and strong leadership. To improve outcomes, foundations must get constant feedback from the field and measure their results, something that we often demand of our grantees but do precious little of ourselves.

Once again, the authors suggest two traps to avoid:  First, failing to solicit outside perspectives. Genuine feedback mechanisms create a learning loop that foundations need to up their game. Second, underestimating the power of nonfinancial assets. Some examples of nonfinancial assets that funders can bring to the table are long-term commitments and help with strategic planning.

In summary: Devise an ambitions and realistic strategy for social change, put it front and center, and demand a stronger performance from ourselves.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Strategic Planning for Foundations: Get Clear, Get Real, and Get Better (Post #3)

In the November 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, an article entitled “Galvanizing Philanthropy” by Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan J. Colby asks all foundation leaders to get clear, get real, and get better at philanthropic investment. This is the LAST of three posts on the article.

Third:  How can we improve our results over time? (Getting better)

Improving results and getting better takes the development of a culture of continual improvement and strong leadership. To improve outcomes, foundations must get constant feedback from the field and measure their results, something that we often demand of our grantees but do precious little of ourselves.

Once again, the authors suggest two traps to avoid: First, failing to solicit outside perspectives. Genuine feedback mechanisms create a learning loop that foundations need to up their game. Second, underestimating the power of nonfinancial assets. Some examples of nonfinancial assets that funders can bring to the table are long-term commitments and help with strategic planning.

In summary: Devise an ambitions and realistic strategy for social change, put it front and center, and demand a stronger performance from ourselves.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Strategic Planning for Foundations: Get Clear, Get Real, and Get Better (Post #2)

In the November 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, an article entitled “Galvanizing Philanthropy” by Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan J. Colby asks all foundation leaders to get clear, get real, and get better at philanthropic investment. This is the SECOND of three posts on the article.

Second: What will it take to make change happen? (Getting real)

Conventional philanthropy, or the process of funding individual grantees to support great initiatives, may be just what a foundation should be doing. Or, grant making funds could be dedicated to helping a multi-pronged solution to a complex problem that the entire community is working to fix. Or, investment in innovative ideas may the answer for the foundation. Whatever the decision on how to give away philanthropic dollars, the authors of “Galvanizing Philanthropy” suggest collecting candid feedback from the community to help evaluate the chosen direction. Moving the needle on a complex social problem is not easy and requires a reality check from time to time.

Most foundations are not realistic about what it takes to make real change happen. The authors suggest two traps to avoid here: First, don’t be too optimistic about what limited resources can do, and second, don’t hire people and create processes that don’t fit your chosen strategy.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Strategic Planning for Foundations: Get Clear, Get Real, and Get Better (Post #1)

In the November 2009 issue of the Harvard Business Review, an article entitled “Galvanizing Philanthropy” by Susan Wolf Ditkoff and Susan J. Colby asks all foundation leaders to get clear, get real, and get better at philanthropic investment. This is the FIRST of three posts on the article.

What is the lasting effect of any philanthropic investment? Often it’s hard to tell. This is a stunning and discouraging fact, especially after years of experience with social investment and countless billions of philanthropic dollars spent nationally.  The authors of "Galvanizing Philanthropy" in this month's Harvard Business Review suggest an approach that could strengthen the foundation world’s impact.  They recommend an iterative process that gauges the impact of philanthropic investments.  It starts by asking three questions that help the organization get clear, get real, and get better.

First: How do we define success? (Getting clear)

Use your strategic planning process to define a few “strategic anchors,” namely, what are the people, problems, places, and philosophies that we care about as a foundation. Once the organization is clear on its strategic anchors, the programs, initiatives, and identity of the grantees naturally follow.

The article encourages taking a look at both hard evidence and data (what we know), and then applying the organization’s values to that data (what we care about).  Even at the foundation level, philanthropy is values-driven.

Some useful questions to ask in this process are provided in the article: “How do we believe change happens? What role to we want to play in tackling this issue? Do we prefer market-based approaches, policy-based approaches, or neither?  Do we favor a vibrant field of volunteer led organizations or a few larger, professionally managed ones?”

Needs data first.  Applied organizational values second.  And only then are decisions on grant making clearer.