AP Perspectives—The View From Via Del Mirlillo: Strategic Planning: Maybe…Or Maybe Not

“Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower

“If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll end up someplace else.” - Yogi Berra

“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work.” – Daniel H. Burnham

“The trouble with many plans is that they are based on the way things are now. To be successful, your personal plan must focus on what you want, not what you have." – Nido Qubein

Many nonprofits undertake strategic planning processes, some successfully, and some, well, not so much. As a development staff member and a consultant to nonprofits I’ve seen — and been part of — the good, the bad, and the ugly strategic planning processes and results. But, if planning is such a good thing, what could possibly go wrong? Lots. Anybody remember COVID?

The quote from Eisenhower really reflects his military mind-set. As I’ve discussed in previous blogs, the reality of military planning is that you can have the best possible well-thought-out and very detailed plans, but the other side may also have the best possible well-thought-out and very detailed plans that are quite different from yours. The strong points in your plan may be anticipated and exploited by the other side’s plan. So, the battle begins and in a real sense it is also a battle of two very different sets of plans, both of which can quickly fall apart. Your plan assumed they would go here, but their plan said they should go there. You get the idea.

If you’re a nonprofit, you don’t need to worry about a known enemy out there. But there are many outside forces that can frustrate and derail the best of strategic plans. Also, there are possibly internal organizational forces that can do the same. And the planning process itself can be full of pitfalls, missteps, and other things which can inhibit success or even cause failure of the most carefully developed plans.

What am I talking about here? Let’s look at some examples I’ve seen. I was working as a consultant to an organization which, over two years, had created a detailed five-year plan. A special board committee had created the plan with some top staff involvement. The plan included aggressively increasing income goals for each year. Programs and services were to be expanded with the growing income; new program staff were to be hired; and expanded management staff were to oversee the growth in that area. After I had reviewed the plan, I happened to be talking to a board member about it. I, knowing much of the income was from fundraising, asked, “Where are these increased funds to come from?” The board member waved his hand in the air and said, “Of course, our fundraising staff will get them.” The plan did not include any increase in development staff and resources. The organization was possibly setting itself up for staff problems in the development area — overworked staff trying to meet impossible goals, burnout, turnover, etc.

In another case the organization’s strategic plan was totally developed by the board and staff. There were to be significant changes in the overall direction of the organization, including in its programs and services, with related changes in targeted individuals and groups served. Had any of those currently served, and projected new people to be served, been consulted about the changes? What would be the impact on donations from current people served? Would those to be served under the new plans be willing to give?

Now, let’s look at something recent that impacted many nonprofits. COVID first emerged in the U.S. in early 2020. As it spread and the public became more aware that COVID was a major public health issue, the nonprofit world began to see its impact in many areas. Planned large fundraising events and celebrations could not be held. Major meetings had to be cancelled or, at best, held as video conferences. In-person meetings with donors and prospects could not usually happen. Many staff were working from home or on very limited schedules in their offices. Everything just slowed down or even stopped. Think about a small nonprofit community theater. Where does a significant amount of its income come from? Performance audiences. What could they do to make up for that income? Possibly mail and online solicitations for donations, but would that money fill the income gap? And how could a strategic plan even anticipate COVID’s impact?

If you go back to the quote from Eisenhower and the discussion of military planning, it is possible to think of those unknown outside forces that could impact your organization as an enemy with unknown and unknowable plans. A pre-COVID five-year plan, possibly finalized in 2019, could not have possibly anticipated COVID and its impact. 

So, in a strategic planning process, what can you do to anticipate those often unknown and possibly unknowable forces that could impact your plans? It’s probably best to not try to even guess what those forces might be, but rather look at areas directly part of, or related to, your organization that these forces could affect. Let’s use our theater example here. In the planning process there could be discussion of, and incorporation into, the plans the “What ifs.” “What if we had something out there which caused a major drop in our attendance? What can we do to prepare for that?” Notice the cause is not included here, just the question about what to do if its result is dropping of attendance numbers and income. So, a good long-range plan should include possible impacts from those unknowns, and some alternate contingency plans for dealing with these impacts. Few plans I have ever seen have alternatives stated. It’s usually, “Full speed ahead.” The Nido Qubein quote emphasizes a more future-oriented plan rather than just building on the existing status of things. 

Beyond the “What ifs” a good plan should incorporate several checkpoints with a schedule, such as, “Every four months at our board meeting.” At each checkpoint staff should be ready to report on the following:

• Progress to date: what’s been accomplished so far.
• Any changes needed or made in the plan due to internal or external occurrences/obstacles — and how these have been addressed with the contingency alternatives defined.
• Plans and goals for the next period between now and the scheduled check in.
• An overall assessment of how the plan is developing and being implemented.

Fundraising is often really a job of building, keeping, and relating to constituencies, whether they are individuals or other types of funders. But very few planning processes do something like a campaign feasibility study to evaluate how the organization is seen by its actual or potential constituencies. What are the organization’s perceived strengths and weaknesses? What would encourage more involvement and support? Where should the organization be in 3 – 5 years? More of the same or what should be different? Input by the various constituencies and even direct involvement of some of the key ones in the planning process can be of great benefit for the creation of a final plan and its successful implementation over time. 

So, the basic message here is: Yes, strategic planning should be a strategic process looking at both the positive and possible negative forces and incorporating the various key people both inside and outside the organization. No plan should be cast in stone and include the flexibility to respond to the new, the unexpected, and other forces.

“You can always amend a big plan, but you can never expand a little one. I don’t believe in little plans. I believe in plans big enough to meet a situation which we can’t possibly foresee now.” – Harry S. Truman