Are Non-Profits Prepared For Strategic Planning?

Are Non-Profits Prepared For Strategic Planning?

Sooner or later over time, every member of the non-profit table will hear the idea let us hold a strategic planning program. from employee or the fellow board member. It is not a bad idea but, however, it is usually a waste of time and generates no measurable outcomes. I wish to discuss some findings and feelings about proper planning – invite controversy – and see if we are able to develop some recommendations which make the expense of time useful. I have often said that proper planning is an ‘approach’ and not an ‘affair’ and I still greatly think that statement holds true. However, perhaps I should also add the warning that the successful ‘approach’ does indeed need an ‘affair’ – or series of functions which is exactly the point.

If you trust my idea that the event often stops about the time it should be beginning, you then will have to agree that additional follow-up after the event is required so that you can create an important strategic plan because the approach stopped lacking completion throughout the initial function. And a lot of time was used which makes people reluctant to participate in the future. Without a doubt, the primary means that I assess a successful strategic approach is by seeing a duplicate of it per year following the ‘event.’ Whether it is a bit too messy and if the pages are in pristine condition, then your event that made the program was obviously not effective in stimulating activity. However, when the backup is dog eared, marked-up, added to, pages tagged, and normally well -employed; then the event was super-successful because a ‘method’ was indeed blessed along with the dependence on constant action was developed.

For me, productive results are too scarce in the proper planning ‘setup’ phase. The copy of the strategic approach that I called profitable is one which has become a working document, which is what planning is all about. From an analytical viewpoint, one method to establish anything is to know what it is not. Method is different from ‘tactical’ or ‘working’. Technique is more subjective and cerebral; it requires considering an issue in broader terms than normal; considering instances that not currently exist i.e., future oriented and deciding how to adjust the corporation to take advantage of these expected opportunities or avoid anticipated threats. Generally, it involves considering a problem absolutely differently than previously. Method development is not exactly like businesses implementation. A Strategic Planning Consulting session led by a ‘doer’ as opposed to a ‘strategist’ and ‘critical thinker’ will yield disappointing outcomes ‘doers’ can be in participating in the development of strategy, quite useful if they are properly advised. A couple of quite simple types of tactical vs. operational problems could make the purpose.

Comments are closed.
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons