AbilityFirst is a Southern California nonprofit serving people with developmental disabilities.   They came to La Piana Consulting at the height of the Great Recession in 2009 in order to think about strategies for responding to economic change.  Our Real-Time Strategic Planning (RTSP) process was a perfect fit for their needs because they wanted to know how to make good decisions in the face of change, and RTSP focuses on creating a Strategy Screen—or list of criteria—to guide decision making.

The challenge: the state of California provided approximately 50% of AbilityFirst’s funding either directly or indirectly—and the state was in the throes of a major budget crisis.  The last state budget process had resulted in significant cuts to state funded services, and the prospect for additional major cuts in coming years was certain.  AbilityFirst knew they had to be prepared to survive these cuts.

Over a period of two months we used the RTSP process with a committee of board members and senior managers to develop critical elements of the Strategy Screen and to analyze information about other providers in the field.

For AbilityFirst, the process focused extensively on identifying the organization’s competitive advantages and using that as primary criteria to guide decision making.  These competitive advantages included specialized facilities for both camping and after school programs that no one else could match, as well as a significant financial reserve.

On a sunny winter day in a meeting room overlooking the Santa Monica beach, the full board of directors gathered for a planning retreat.  The specific agenda was to confirm the Strategy Screen that had been developed by the RTSP committee, then apply that screen to the Big Question facing AbilityFirst: which programs would receive priority protection as funding diminished?

The board quickly approved the Strategy Screen and systematically applied the tool to consider the organization’s ten programs.  The discussion was focused, but rich in details that staff would later use in executing on the board’s decisions.  By the end of the day, the board had identified two programs as not core to fulfilling the organization’s mission.  The staff had its marching orders: consider how to shed these programs over time in a responsible way.

Over the next six months, one of the two programs was easily transferred to another agency, ensuring that clients received ongoing services.  The second involves complex and long-term financial and legal agreements and could not be eliminated in the short term.  That said, the organization continues to negotiate a possible transfer of the program to another nonprofit specializing in the field.

The State of California continued to face major budget challenges in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 fiscal years, resulting in further cuts in funding for the developmentally disabled.  AbilityFirst was ready and continues to thrive.

The result: AbilityFirst continues to be a highly focused nonprofit providing the most effective, high quality services possible to meet the needs of its clients and to fulfill its mission.  In the face of financial pressures, it is operating in a manner that is sustainable over the long run and now has decision making tools at its disposal to continue to develop and refine future strategies.

PHOTOS: Courtesy AbilityFirst and Jim Douglass

I will be leading the keynote at the Ohio Grantmakers Forum Annual Conference in October on the topic of Nonprofit Strategy in the New Abnormal and check out my recent guest blog at the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Tell me what you think. Is any of this new or normal?

Leadership requires more than the confidence to stand up and offer to lead. In fact, there are three skill areas that must be built or honed for someone to truly claim the mantle of leadership.

1. Self-Awareness.

You must have an understanding and appreciation of who you are as a person, and how you manage yourself. This includes:
•   Knowing skills, limits, strengths, and competencies through realistic self-appraisal
•   Developing control, self-regulation, and an ability to “live in the response, not the stimulus,”
•   Understanding time vs. energy management
•   Maintaining a deep commitment to personal and professional growth
•   Having the ability to monitor and regulate self-efficacy

2. Understanding of Others.

Another key element of leadership requires your ability to connect and influence others.  These skills include your:
•    Capacity for deep listening
•    Development of personal voice and an ability to influence others
•    Aptitude to affirm, connect with, and correct others
•    Ability to have difficult conversations
•    High level of cultural competency
•    Ability to forge and deepen interpersonal relationships
•    Improvisational skills

3. Organizational Impact.

Leaders need to understand how to create and direct an organization beyond standard operations.  These skills include:
•    Understanding how organizations work
•    Creating organizational engagement and alignment
•    Building and directing teams
•    Thinking strategically

Given these key elements above, leadership development programs require a combination of:

Self-reflection: participants must be given an opportunity to see themselves as others see them in order to build their strengths and minimize any weaknesses in their self-presentation, communication style, or other behaviors.

Peer learning and networking:  sessions must include time for participants to connect as peers through both structured activities and exercises and through open discussion.

Hard skill development: participants must learn something new and useful during each session, such as how to manage a troublesome staff member, develop a personal performance plan, or more effectively run a board meeting.

Through research and practice, we have found that there are 5 essential program elements to build multi-dimensional leaders in a setting that builds hard skills, creates a strong peer network, and allows for self-reflection and personal growth.

The 5 essential elements of a leadership development program are:

1. Community. Both seasoned organizational leaders and emerging leaders achieve transformative learning when part of a community of peers.  The shared experience of self-examination and skill development creates a sense of shared identity for moving forward together and a mutually supportive community to draw on once the formal program ends.

2. Context. The individuals in the program must be able to leave behind for the moment their organizational context in order to explore issues, solutions, and new skills that will help them to address their work challenges. In this way they will return to their organizational home ready to practice what they have learned.  The workplace then becomes a real-life learning laboratory where new skills and confidence can be applied.

3. Clinic. Each time the learning community gathers “the clinic” provides a vital connection between practice and learning.  Based upon case study methodology borrowed from the social science/educational/  disciplines, individuals have the opportunity to present a current issue or problem they find challenging.  The community becomes a problem solving resource that sheds light on the underlying issues and provides an opportunity for problem-solving engagement for all participants.

4.  Coaching. Strong leadership programs include assessment tools as well as qualitative feedback to build self-knowledge.  Incorporating individual executive coaching allows each participant to translate data and feedback into actions to address weaknesses and reinforce strengths.

5. Curriculum. The curriculum must choose from among the wide array of topics and sub-topics related to leadership and management.  Topics must inform and build upon each other while integrating solid, proven nonprofit management and leadership practices.  The curriculum must also be applicable and understandable from a range of diverse perspectives and delivered in a manner that connects with adult learners.

We have used this holistic approach towards leadership development programs and learning communities from Honolulu Hawai’i to Fargo North Dakota. What elements do you think are most critical to a leadership development program?

Yet in recent weeks we have seen two more major affiliates of well-known national nonprofits leave the fold. Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, in Northern California, is now Golden Gate Community Health, and KCET, the PBS affiliate in Los Angeles, recently announced its intention to leave the PBS family in January 2011.

Each of these situations is unique and involves a combination of differing perspectives, financial tensions and interpersonal conflicts, but I wonder if economic pressures are increasingly going to drive large affiliates of national organizations to leave behind their household brand name in favor of independence.

KCET will lose access to crucial PBS programs such as Sesame Street, while the two health organizations named above will continue to offer the same service but without the benefit of instant name recognition.

Given the demands of participation in a national organization (financial, programmatic, quality review, brand usage and the like) we may see additional large affiliates deciding they can do better on their own.

In the short run that may be true, but it remains to be seen whether they can replace the instant name recognition and credibility of their former national partners with local support. And of course there is always the possibility – indeed the likelihood – that the national organization will establish a new franchise in the same area, providing a high profile competitor who will build on the previous organization’s name recognition, now abandoned.

Stay tuned.

In the case, a long-slumbering board hires an entrepreneurial executive director to revitalize their museum. He brings in a small cohort of new board members who are local business leaders. Fundraising increases, and the business board members are highly involved, then they become too involved. They make executive decisions behind the director’s back, move the museum’s banking to the board chair’s bank, buy office equipment from another board member’s company, and tie the museum’s signature event to their businesses.

You can imagine the end of this story. Both the executive director and the board chair submit resignations in frustration and the organization is on the brink of collapse.

When I use this case I ask students, or workshop participants, to first determine what actually happened. Step by step, I want them to understand how the decisions unfolded and the relationships unraveled?

Then I ask them to apportion blame among the various parties – there is plenty to go around. Finally I ask them what could be done now. This usually leads to a lively discussion.

Cases are a powerful learning aid, a realization which brought me the following insight: could a nonprofit experiencing significant internal conflict or lack of clarity benefit from writing its own case?

The idea would be to gather organizational leaders from board and staff and give them a structured writing exercise where they describe the road that has gotten them to their current situation. What key decisions, external circumstances, and relationships were most significant? Maybe do it in small group format so that they can later compare and contrast different versions of the story.

This would lead to an airing of different viewpoints and ultimately, with luck and good facilitation, to a shared understanding of the present situation. With agreement on the “what happened” question, I would ask them to address the causes of their current situation, and then what can be done about it now?

This process follows the model of my big picture view of strategy. It asks: where are we, how did we get here, and what do we do about it?

I usually bite my tongue in those situations but I am always left wondering, would your foundation buy a house and then not replace a faulty furnace or broken hot water tank? Would they buy a new car and then never change the oil or spark plugs?

The point is that when you invest in something important you take care of it, you make sure it operates smoothly and occasionally you upgrade it. You don’t just buy it and let it fall apart.

Yet the “no capacity-building” movement among funders, and its close cousin the “no indirect cost” school of thought , somehow assume that the organization’s infrastructure can run on air while the funder’s money goes into the important stuff, the program.

How many times has a funder invested heavily in a new idea only to see it fail to produce the desired outcome? The funder usually decides the innovative idea just wasn’t the right solution and moves on.

However, I know from experience that in many of these situations, the programmatic idea never had a real chance to succeed because a weak board, poor financial management practices, lack of a clear organizational identity and purpose, or similar infrastructure weaknesses doomed the program, and the organization itself, to failure.

If the funder had invested in strengthening the organizational infrastructure, as un-sexy as that might be, the innovative program idea would’ve had a better chance for success.

Walt Shill, head of the North American practice for Accenture, is quite blunt: “Strategy, as we knew it, is dead. Corporate clients decided that increased flexibility and accelerated decision making are much more important than simply predicting the future.” Corporate planners are increasingly revising their forecasts monthly, but this too is the wrong solution in my opinion. It consists of continually moving the goal posts. When you first miss your numbers, recast them. Next month, repeat.

It is great to see corporate America, and consulting giants like Accenture, beginning to see the problems with long-term static planning approaches to strategy. We identified similar problems in the nonprofit sector years ago and prescribed a better approach to strategy, our Real-Time Strategic Planning methodology, which was described in The Nonprofit Strategy Revolution in 2008. Sometimes our sector leads the way! In this work we describe an ongoing strategy process designed to anticipate and respond to challenges and opportunities as they emerge.

We are clear that the trends we study will have a profound impact on the sector’s work but we don’t know how they will evolve, interact, and respond to other economic, social and political developments. What can a thoughtful leader do in this constantly changing landscape?

One thing is certain: traditional strategic planning with its 3-5 year timeframe is not up to muster in this dynamic environment. That’s why we created Real-Time Strategic Planning to create an atmosphere where futurists can flourish.