What goes in the lay of the land?

January 31, 2011

Filed under: Strategic Planning — Tags: — jonathanpoisner @ 4:43 pm

I’ve spent some time today thinking about the “lay of the land” and what goes into it in an effective strategic planning process.

The “lay of the land” is a term of art used by some to describe a series of statements about the world that forms the context for the strategic plan.   I actually personally prefer the language “strategic assumptions” to describe these statements.

They may be statements of fact, predictors of the future, or statements that constitute a theory of change about why the activities you pursue lead to the goals or outcomes you desire.

An example of a fact would be: the population of Oregon is 3,825,657 as of July 2009.  Or: The U.S. Senate currently is controlled by a Democratic majority and the House by a Republican majority.

An example of a predictor would be:  The proportion of the population older than 65 is slated to rise from X% to Y% over the next 10 years.  Or: The U.S. Congress will remain highly polarized along partisan lines over the next 5 years.

An example of a theory of change statement would be:  Members of Congress are more likely to vote as an organization desires if they feel it can help them win their next reelection or if they fear it may target them for defeat.  Or: Lobbyists with long-time relationships with members of the state legislature are better positioned to get legislators to cast tough votes.

I have seen strategic plans that boil down this section to a couple of paragraphs.  And I’ve seen a strategic plan that contained 6 pages of very dense demographic information.

As is often the case, I’m not a fan of either extreme.

The importance of including strategic assumptions is that making assumptions explicit almost always help people get on the same page.  I often find that when two people are arguing “past each other,” it’s usually because they have different underlying assumptions and don’t realize it.

Making your assumptions explicit also provides a very useful tool to determine when, if ever, you should revisit your plan.  The answer — when one of your key assumptions proves to not be true.

If folks have examples of lay of the land sections from their strategic plan they’d be willing to share with me, I’m interested in seeing more.

And if you have thoughts about what has or has not worked in your own strategic planning processes, please share them.

Be Sociable, Share!

What’s your first hire?

January 27, 2011

Filed under: Human Resources — jonathanpoisner @ 8:53 am

A few days ago I was chatting over coffee with a new acquaintance who serves as Executive Director of a small, 3 year old organization.  As of now, the staff consists of her and 2 staff people, both of whom work half-time on programs.

We had an interesting conversation about what the appropriate hiring sequence is for smaller organizations that want to grow.  In her case, the decision to hire program staff was driven by program-specific grants.

But if grant restrictions don’t exist, what’s the next hire?

Some organizations hire staff to do mission-driven program work.  The choice here is to free up the Executive Director from program work as much as possible, so that they can focus on fundraising and building organizational administrative systems.

Some organizations hire development staff.   Under this choice, the goal is to augment the organizations fundraising as rapidly as possible, freeing up the Executive Director to do higher level relationship building, organizational systems, and programs.

My own recommendation is a third path — a part-time administrative assistant.  Maybe you call this person Office Manager.  Regardless, the goal of this position is to identify 10-20 hours of work that implement basic organizational systems, removing from the Executive Directors plate the least complex tasks that can be done by somebody who’s paid far less and is happy without significant work stress in their life.

With the time freed up for them to do extra fundraising, a competent Executive Director should be able to raise far more than the cost of the new staff person.

Let’s do the math.  If you hire an administrative assistant at $10-15/hour for 15 hours per week, taking into account overhead and taxes, that roughly means $200-$300 per week in extra expense for the organization.   This should free up an absolute minimum of 5 hours per week for the Executive Director to do more fundraising.  The question is: can the Executive Director raise an extra $40-$60 on average for every extra hour they fundraise?

My answer is, if they can’t, then they shouldn’t be your Executive Director.   A good Executive Director should be able to raise far more than that.    That puts the organization in an even stronger position to then hire a subsequent staff person — whether for program or development — or for some combination of program and development.

Of course, the danger of this approach is some Executive Directors reach this point and redirect their extra time into program instead of into fundraising.

Be Sociable, Share!

The Purpose of this Blog

January 24, 2011

Filed under: About My Work — admin @ 4:08 pm

Just a quick note as I launch my new website, that I’ve included a blog function.

I did this because I’m constantly having ideas, thoughts, and things I want to share that are too timely to wait until my next e-newsletter, and where Facebook or Twitter can’t do them justice.

Feel free to grab the rss feed if you want to read them as they’re posted.

And if you have ideas for something I should blog about, please email me.

Be Sociable, Share!

Content © Copyright 2010-2013 • Jonathan Poisner Strategic Consulting LLC. All rights reserved.