I was reminded of the importance of Commander’s Intent when speaking with a colleague yesterday. He handed me an operating plan for a marketing campaign and wondered, ‘why aren’t we making any progress?’ I reviewed the document and questioned if he had motivated and professional staff working on the execution. He raved about their skills. I then pointed to a one line-items and said, ‘perhaps you can allow them more flexibility to complete the project. In his enthusiasm to write the plan he had provided ever detail, down to the shopping list at the office supply store.
The book, Made to Stick, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath was one of the first to introduce me to the idea of Commander’s Intent. A military philosophy that basically boils down to a commander ordering his team to ‘take that hill.’ Commander’s role is over besides monitoring the status of his order. It is up to the field officers to determine the best strategy. If they want to storm the hill, use artillery, parachute, or surround it, the tactical choices are made by those on the ground. Strategy comes from the command but execution is left to those who will carry it out.
It is always a slippery slope assessing where the line between planning and managing exists. Sometimes it is helpful to ask, am I asking for the hill to be taken or telling the troops what route is best? If you have hired and trained the best individuals, commander’s intent provides direction without suffocating creativity.
What if this was your job interview as a prospective board-staff-volunteer member for a cause you were passionate about?
Would you take the job? Why? Would it be for the chance to experience glory? To change the world? To inspire others? To meet a need? For the adventure? To connect with interesting people who shared your passion? To meet an emotional need? Because you were asked?
We all said ‘yes’ at some moment to join the social sector in a range of capacities. Are you engaged for the same reasons? Would you say ‘yes’ again today? Are you more passionate or more realistic about the cause to which you have dedicated your time, treasure, talent and touch?
How do you stay in-touch with the inspiration that allowed you to answer, ‘when do I get started?’ How do you recruit new members to your cause and tap into their passion? What if your level of connection only grew stronger from the time you joined?
Is it is truly about what we give and not what we get? It is a powerful idea. What would be the central focus of your organization if you measured success and effectiveness based on what you gave? Would it be different from what you do today? As donors, how much of their contributions are driven by the stated and intangible benefits? Are we encouraging transactions or gifts? Does a strategic plan prioritize a program that is favored by a funder? Does the board meet when it best serves the organization or because it convenient to the board members? Do we compensate staff based on what they contribute to the organization or only based on benchmarks? Do we ask our volunteers what talent they most enjoy contributing or do we simply assign them to the next available project? Do we ask what the CEO what inspires them to give or do we ask them only to get?
What if we asked what does our enterprise have to give? What if what we have to give became the driving message of our campaigns?
So much of the social sector seems driven by what we can get? What grant can we secure, what board member can we get to join, what program will increase the organizations revenue the most?
Perhaps we can remember to focus on what we have to give. Somebody founded the organization because they had a vision of what they could give.
Reading the book, The Leader Who Had No Title by Robin Sharma and I was struck by the following passage.
‘In the new world of business, the riskiest place you can be is trying to do the same thing in the same way as you’ve always done them. Few things are as foolish as hoping old behaviors will somehow present new results.’
The social sector has been quick to innovation on some fronts and tied to the volumes of history in other areas. The sector was the fastest to adopt to the promises of social media. Many nonprofits found Facebook to way to claim a stake in the internet’s version of the Homestead Act. Every enterprise was trying to get their virtual forty acres. The Facebook application Causes was ideally suited to handle the growing swarm of grassroots campaigns. On the other hand, many nonprofits were slow to respond to the current economic crisis. There was much delay in considering cost-cutting, laying-off employees, merging or even closing the doors. I noticed many for-profit businesses were far faster to make adjustments. The social sector turned to its donors and asked for critical operating support with urgency. Soon each group’s message was lost among a cacophony of organizations trying to champion their dire situation.
We know that the old model will not work in a new economy. Donor’s interest have moved, priorities have shifted, corporate giving has undergone a massive transformation, the collective memory of 2008-2009 will remain etched in the Baby Boomer’s memories (among other generations). Those that the sector most planned to sustain us with financial contributions, time and talent may be less able. So what has your organization done to amend the way it does business? Did you adjust to survive the recession and plan to return to business as usual? Have you altered your strategic plan to take advantage of opportunities that were unimaginable 18 months ago? Are you still considering yourself a victim of a global economic crisis or has your enterprise become a entrepreneurial leader?
The book makes another point. ‘The space shuttle uses more fuel during its first three minutes after liftoff than during its entire voyage around the earth.’ So often you find that launching an idea into orbit takes a tremendous amount of energy and commitment. So much so that we frequently leave our ideas on the launch pad waiting for another day and more favorable conditions. How can you combine innovation and your organization’s authenticity to find a new orbit? As I wrote about last week, NASA is being given a new vision, the moon is being left to private industry and Mars has become the next challenge. If your competitive advantage consisted of programs focused solely on the moon the game has changed. Are you ready?
Maybe it is just me but I have taken notice of the following items this week:
Change is constant. Sometimes it is just subtle enough that I do not fully appreciate its impact until I seem the parts summarized. A couple years ago I would have been amazed at any one of these headlines but now I take them in stride or barely notice their impact. It is a great time to be in the social sector, despite the challenges of mergers, a recession, limited volunteers, competition, or the fear of pending doom. The sector has more direct communication and control over its message, impact, outreach, networks, sphere of influence and fans than anytime in history. For some causes the captain may have turned on the seat belt sign or perhaps that noise I was the wheels touching down at another great destination. I am going to have a look around.
If you could have one person in your community or from your geographic region speak to the benefit your organization provides, who would it be? What would be most compelling about having this person advocate for your cause? What barriers if any keep this individual from committing to this opportunity? Who do you know who could ask them on your behalf? In what setting would this person’s personal testimony have the greatest impact?
Sounds like you have a plan already- time to make it happen. Your organization deserves the recognition.
The debate taking place within the NASA community concerns the future role of the agency. President Obama recently highlighted his mission for NASA when he spoke at the John F. Kennedy Space Center on April 15.
“So the point is what we’re looking for is not just to continue on the same path — we want to leap into the future; we want major breakthroughs; a transformative agenda for NASA… Critical to deep space exploration will be the development of breakthrough propulsion systems and other advanced technologies. So I’m challenging NASA to break through these barriers. And we’ll give you the resources to break through these barriers. And I know you will, with ingenuity and intensity, because that’s what you’ve always done.”
President Obama
What has some NASA insiders concerned is that there is no specific mission. President Obama has presented a vision but some space supporters are concerned that it is not compelling enough.
“Talking about a goal like that so far in the future- anyone can do that…What is the vision for NASA? One of the things that the old hands at the space agency all say is absolutely crucial is timetables and destinations. A firm destination and some idea of when you hope to be there. The open-ended nature of what the Obama Administration is proposing has bothered some of those space hands…folks are worried about the long-term survivability of this plan”
Many of us who were alive during the moon landing or grew-up in the shadows of its legacy can recall the power of President Kennedy’s famous refrain, “send a man to the moon by the end of the decade.”
When planning organizational goals, how important is a deadline and a specific destination? I would argue to NASA it is everything. Study projects, congressional funding, attracting astronauts, sustaining key independent contracts, retaining the best and brightest assembled around a specific itinerary.
How important are deadlines and destinations to your organization? Deadlines force you to thrash early and then ship (see April 14 blog post). Destinations provide direction. If we agree that Jim Collin’s challenge to get the right people on the bus and then put them in the right seats is essential to success- can we also agree that the bus better be headed to a compelling destination?
Robert Litan’s research provides an interesting window into job growth and its impact on the US economy. Interviewed by Marty Moss-Coanes on WHYY radio yesterday, Robert presented data that demonstrates that almost all the job creation since 1980 has come from entrepreneurs creating small businesses that were less than five years old.
The research is also the subject of a November 6, 2009 Wall Street Journal piece written by Carl Schramm, Robert Litan and Dane Stangler.
“The more precise factor is not the size of businesses, but rather their age. According to the Census Bureau, nearly all net job creation in the U.S. since 1980 occurred in firms less than five years old. A Kauffman Foundation report released yesterday shows that as recently as 2007, two-thirds of the jobs created were in such firms. Put more starkly, without new businesses, job creation in the American economy would have been negative for many years.”
Although the research does not focus specifically on data in the social sector the Kauffman Foundation has funded studies examining the impact of entrepreneurship on social responsibility as Bill Green speaks about at the foundation’s website.
One could argue that small nonprofits have contributed to this pool of new jobs. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics The nonprofit sector is composed of 1.56 million tax-exempt organizations and accounts for 8.1% of all wages and salaries paid in the United States.
What is the impact of the nonprofit sector on your community? Is your organization a younger nonprofit that is part of the job growth? Are you able to communicate the importance of the social sector to your community’s economy?
