Do you know a nonprofit that is always in some sort of chaotic state with everyone running around and no systems, but somehow still manages to do important, good stuff?
And on the other hand, do you know any nonprofits that are like smoothly running machines — checking off everything on the management audit — but aren’t really having any real impact on the world?
Most of know at least one of each of the above two types! We bemoan them both. We might dub the first one the "Disorganized Doer and Shaker" and the other one the "Orderly Chair Occupier."
The fact that both types of organizations exist is evidence of something very important, yet seldom said: good management does not necessarily lead to high impact.
Good management is certainly a good thing, and good management can support high impact. But the organization with the up-to-date personnel manual, the gorgeous financial statements and the four-color annual report could also be the stale organization that is just coasting on its reputation and name recognition.
This leads us to the other question that we seldom ask ourselves in nonprofits: are our programs really as terrific as we say they are?
Great management systems hid a disconnect with community
We know a prestigious nonprofit serving low-income young people that became the poster child for good management by a large national consulting firm that worked with this nonprofit in strategic planning. Shortly after the case study was published, the nonprofit’s executive left to work at a large foundation. Her successor was shocked and dismayed to discover that this well-managed icon had very weak programs and impact. She commented in a newsletter, "I need to find out why kids don’t like us" (paraphrased).
The reality is that we seldom question the value of our programs. We are eager to critique our management systems, but we shy away from critiquing our programs. We are not embarrassed to say that our accounting systems are out-of-date, but we seldom admit (or even think) that our programs might be out-of-date.
In short, we need to work separately on management and on program impact. We cannot assume that focusing our attention on improved management processes will mean we have high impact.
* This issue we have the sequel to the Vanguard Foundation story, and an unusual take on diversity from an unusual angle. Plus how to find and hire an accountant, and a visit with a panda (or maybe how to hire a panda and photograph an accountant?). — Jan Masaoka
Yes, a nonprofit might be able to have “high impact” with bad management practices. And, SUVs get people to work, even though they produce excess exhaust.
Good management practices are more than just good accounting software and slick brochures. Good management practices safeguard against discrimination and employee exploitation; they prevent fraud and waste; they can foster innovation and creativity; and, they provide the bedrock for the organization’s longevity.
Bad management practices lead to behavior that is not ok. How many organizations, in the name of the mission, illegally classify all employees as exempt to avoid paying overtime? How many organizations waste time and money by having no relevant systems?
Untrained supervisors demotivate their employees with bad supervision. A good manager can create a lifetime of meaningful work for employees. These are things that make a difference when we talk about bad versus good management.
We sometimes treat bad management as though it’s not a big deal – as long as the organization is doing good work. In fact, it’s a very big deal, and one we should treat with seriousness.
And, to bring this comment full circle, a tenet of good management is constantly evaluating the organization’s programs for excellence and relevance!
—
Mary Going
Management & Finance Consultant to Nonprofits
510-473-5414
My personal definition of a good manager is someone who goes after and delivers good results or impacts. Others seem to be setting a pretty low bar for qualifying as a good manager.
http://www.managingnonprofits.org/an-at-risk/
I run an adult education program in a nonprofit. I’m young and have visions of doing bigger anti-poverty work. My biggest complaint about my current position is that I don’t have much time to THINK. I think good management should pay attention to INNOVATION. I just heard about Google’s system of “20 percent time” that encourages engineers to take a day a week pursuing their own projects. From this opening, evidently, came Gmail and Google News. http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/19/pm-freakonomics-radio-a-government-official-in-venture-capitalists-clothing/ For 75 years, the U.S. has had some measure of social welfare. For 45 years, we’ve had social safety net programs intended to address gaps in housing, employment, childcare, nutrition. For at least two decades we’ve had a glut of foundations and nonprofits looking for solutions to poverty. And yet the hardest-hit areas still look … pretty hard-hit. We need innovation. We need nonprofit leaders who can make the space for it.
Bob Cryer
I totally agree that a manager must take time to think about what are the really important, high impact things that their organization must do, and what are the less important descretionary items that can be put off. If a manager doesn’t do this, they are not managing; they are being managed by the situation that they are in.
http://www.managingnonprofits.org/for-profit-thinking/
“Good management does not necessarily lead to high impact.”
I agree. I think the issues raised in this post get back to the old question of “tactics” vs. “strategy.” Seamless accounting, slick presentation: one might view these as “tactics.” Good management steps that can–CAN–help lead to an organization that is run well AND making an impact.
But the “strategy” must be making an impact. Are we doing good work? Are we serving the clients we should be? The four-color annual report can be a means to that end–maybe it attracts new funders. Maybe it raises the program’s public profile, helping reach out to new clients. But beware the four-color annual report becoming an end in itself.
Tactics vs. strategy–not a perfect metaphor, but one I think we can keep in mind.
While I do love the photo above your editor’s notes on this issue, the statement "good management does not necessarily lead to high impact," caught my attention. You are absolutely right but I’d also suggest the inverse: that high impact can never be sustained without good management. Quick high impact can be achieved without agood management underpinning but it won’t last. Sustained high impact nees both good programs and good management.
Hi, Jan, Would love to reprint your excellent lead article in my business blog at http://lynhopperconsulting.wordpress.com. OK? Thanks as always for your insight!
Lyn
Lyn, thank you for such a nice note! Thank you for this message! We are delighted to have you reprint material from Blue Avocado. In fact, it’s part of our mission to be useful enough to people that they pass things on. Here is our reprint policy:
* At the beginning of the article you reprint, use this wording or something similar: "This article is reprinted with permission from Blue Avocado, a practical fast-read magazine for nonprofits. Subscribe free by sending an email to editor@blueavocado.org or at http://www.blueavocado.org."
* If you are reprinting in hardcopy, please mail a copy to us at Blue Avocado, 731 Market Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94103. If you are reprinting in an email newsletter or on a website, please send us a copy or a link.
That’s it! Thanks so much for asking. Jan
THANKS. It is my first time to read Blue Avocado. Jan Masaoka is a good thinker and writer. Cecil
Nice article, but I don’t buy the “we seldom question the value of our programs” statement. I don’t know any nonprofits, especially in this economic downturn, that aren’t questioning the worth of their programs. Perhaps we don’t measure the impact as well as we should – but that doesn’t mean we aren’t asking about it.
In regards to management, while I agree that good management doesn’t always lead to more impact, I think it can make it more likely. This is especially true in mid to large-size organizations with many staff members. A poorly-managed organization is a terrible place to work and rarely brings out the best in people.
I pretty much agree with Jan when I consider my church (yes, churches are non-profits) and some others of whom I’m familiar. We just keep churning out the same old stuff year after year because we are comfortable with it and we believe if meets our needs. The lay leadership seldom changes but we’ve a turn over of pastors because we seem to get rid of them quickly. Mission? We’re way under-visioned and under-achieving. We don’t see the need to evaluate effectiveness. We’re yearly underfunded because attendees aren’t excited. I’m slowly loosing my interest. But we do have an up-to-date set of by-laws. Ed