Great article and insights! There are varying perspectives regarding the health of nonprofits and the communities in which we serve. We do a grave disservice in not considering and valuing our emerging leaders in the initial phases of initiatives and programs that ultimately affect their everyday lives. We can develop and implement bad community/direct service products if we are not consistently listening to participant feedback provided at every level and phase of the process. It is not enough to ask for feedback once a project/initiative is launched and the product is out the door. If the service falls short, we have not optimized the opportunity but have wasted valuable time and resources in a failed effort to birth efforts with blinders.
You’ve picked up on a common thread making a huge impact in the for-profit sector. Namely, customer obsessed driven strategies drive more impactful outcomes across the board. There are analogies abound here and why non-profits should lean on their board members to bring this lens to strategic planning.
I applaud all that Lehn Benjamin has stated in this article. I am also a bit disappointed in the tiny emphasis on program beneficiaries potential as board members. I would have thought to begin and end with this point recognizing that most often where the board goes - so goes the organization be it fiduciary, strategic and or generative thinking. I could even see a whole article on this point alone.
Many non-profit organizations are trying to work with the volunteer and the local community. That’s why organizations are trying to appoint participants in the management and leading positions based on experiences. Moreover, non-profit institutions believe that participants will bring positive outcomes by motivating the community and other staff to align their social strategy. Thanks for your guidance.
In different statistics, it is shown that despite having lots of opportunities, people do not want to work with non-profitable organizations because of their managers. Some management officials are reluctant to work with general people due to their ill motives. When organizations recruit participants in their management board, the management officials treat them harshly who are working with the local community. That’s why participants fail to contribute in growth of the organizations and give up their voluntary work.
The 7th bullet point regarding: “Evaluation models would account for the fact that participants are not simply “targets” of interventions, but they are people who are also taking steps to make changes in their lives and communities and engaging the nonprofit along the way” was striking to me as it reminded me of Arturo Escobar’s recommendations for determining alternatives to development or similarly, an intervention, made by “developing nations” (or “target groups”) and move away from relying on modern western knowledge systems, which stresses economic growth and material progress. This section also focused on how at face value, metrics don’t always tell us the full story or the root cause of the issue – rather, we need to spend time digging in (through mixed methods, etc.) to uncover more accurate and telling information that could help with evaluation.
COMMENTS
BY Juanita Sheppard
ON July 16, 2021 09:04 AM
Great article and insights! There are varying perspectives regarding the health of nonprofits and the communities in which we serve. We do a grave disservice in not considering and valuing our emerging leaders in the initial phases of initiatives and programs that ultimately affect their everyday lives. We can develop and implement bad community/direct service products if we are not consistently listening to participant feedback provided at every level and phase of the process. It is not enough to ask for feedback once a project/initiative is launched and the product is out the door. If the service falls short, we have not optimized the opportunity but have wasted valuable time and resources in a failed effort to birth efforts with blinders.
BY Pamela Dixon
ON July 18, 2021 07:55 AM
You’ve picked up on a common thread making a huge impact in the for-profit sector. Namely, customer obsessed driven strategies drive more impactful outcomes across the board. There are analogies abound here and why non-profits should lean on their board members to bring this lens to strategic planning.
BY MICHAEL BURNS, BWB Solutions
ON July 18, 2021 08:36 AM
I applaud all that Lehn Benjamin has stated in this article. I am also a bit disappointed in the tiny emphasis on program beneficiaries potential as board members. I would have thought to begin and end with this point recognizing that most often where the board goes - so goes the organization be it fiduciary, strategic and or generative thinking. I could even see a whole article on this point alone.
BY Lupe Jenkins
ON October 19, 2021 02:34 AM
Many non-profit organizations are trying to work with the volunteer and the local community. That’s why organizations are trying to appoint participants in the management and leading positions based on experiences. Moreover, non-profit institutions believe that participants will bring positive outcomes by motivating the community and other staff to align their social strategy. Thanks for your guidance.
BY Wayne Jordan
ON October 26, 2021 06:36 AM
In different statistics, it is shown that despite having lots of opportunities, people do not want to work with non-profitable organizations because of their managers. Some management officials are reluctant to work with general people due to their ill motives. When organizations recruit participants in their management board, the management officials treat them harshly who are working with the local community. That’s why participants fail to contribute in growth of the organizations and give up their voluntary work.
BY Pooja Patel
ON November 8, 2021 12:11 PM
The 7th bullet point regarding: “Evaluation models would account for the fact that participants are not simply “targets” of interventions, but they are people who are also taking steps to make changes in their lives and communities and engaging the nonprofit along the way” was striking to me as it reminded me of Arturo Escobar’s recommendations for determining alternatives to development or similarly, an intervention, made by “developing nations” (or “target groups”) and move away from relying on modern western knowledge systems, which stresses economic growth and material progress. This section also focused on how at face value, metrics don’t always tell us the full story or the root cause of the issue – rather, we need to spend time digging in (through mixed methods, etc.) to uncover more accurate and telling information that could help with evaluation.