Q:

“I’m the ED of a nonprofit that currently does not have a strategic plan. I have offered to plan and lead the strategic planning process, but the board has pushed back, and they seem to think that’s a huge overstep. But that’s literally what they hired me for - ‘providing strategic direction to the organization’ is in my actual job description! At this point, if they want to hire an outside consultant, that would be fine with me, I just want a plan. But the board has decided that a full RFP process needs to happen, and a committee has been working on the RFP for months. I honestly don’t see us starting this process in the next six months, and then the process they have in mind is quite extensive, beyond what we actually need. I think all of this is overkill, and I’m tempted to just put together a draft plan and share it at the next board meeting. Any advice on this? Is it really not okay for an ED to lead their own strategic planning process?! Is this something that I should defer to the board on?”

A:

As someone who makes a living as a strategic planning consultant, I probably shouldn’t say this, but: I wish more nonprofits would manage their strategic planning in-house. As a sector, we’ve bought into this convention that every strategic plan needs to be managed by an external expert, following the same rote formula: environmental scan, consultation, SWOT, pick three pillars, design the PDF. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this approach, but whenever we fall into the trap of adopting a conventional practice without understanding when, where and why it makes sense, we are acting without reflection. And let’s be real: if the conventional approach was really the be-all-and-end-all, why is everyone so frustrated with the state of strategic planning all the time?  

There are plenty of reasons why you would want to manage your strategic planning in house, and some situations where bringing in external support makes sense. But at the end of the day, what I really want to see is organizations having conversations about the kind of strategy they need, and then making a thoughtful choice about the best way to develop that strategy. (And if I’m being honest, I would love to turn the whole ‘nonprofit strategic planning process’ on its head, but that’s a topic for another day!). 

Is In-House Strategic Planning Right for Your Nonprofit?

When you manage your strategic plan internally, you are not only saving money (many nonprofits simply don’t have the budget to hire a consultant!), but you will be better positioned to work flexibly and responsively within your organization, AND you’ll be building internal capacity around strategic work. 

Here are a few criteria to reflect on when considering in-house strategy work:

• Your staff and board have the skills to steward the process. If you have folks on your team who are skilled and experienced in strategic thinking and decision making, then why not tap into that resource? This is also a chance for other members of the team to get involved and develop strategy skills, which is an excellent capacity building opportunity for your organization.
• Your staff and board have the capacity to manage the process. Your team needs to have time and space for the thinking, planning and action required to put together a strategy. If your board and/or team is at, or beyond, capacity, it can be very difficult to create the kind of thoughtful, generative space needed to manage strategy development. In fact, one of the things I have noticed with over-capacity organizations is that it becomes quite difficult to see past the immediate context of being overburdened to think and act strategically.
• The organization has a culture of transparency, trust and dialogue. If your nonprofit has an established track record of engaging in tough conversations in constructive ways, you’re probably a good candidate for managing strategy in-house. You want to look for the kind of trust that creates room for open dialogue, across power differentials. If there is a lack of trust, if dialogue has broken down in the past, and if conflicts get avoided rather than addressed, you probably want to look for an experienced facilitator who can help you move through conflict toward a better outcome.
• There is a clearly articulated, shared understanding of the organization’s core purpose. For strategy to be meaningful, you need to have a clear core purpose statement for the organization. Everyone involved, board, staff, partners, clients etc., all need to have a shared understanding of why the organization exists, and the ultimate change or impact it is working toward. Most organizations take this for granted, but when you get into strategic conversations, you realize that different individuals have different assumptions about who you are, what you do, and why it matters. This makes it very difficult to develop a coherent, defensible strategy.
• Your staff and board are able to test assumptions. Blindspots are a big risk for any strategic plan, and ‘insiders’ are not always well positioned to spot these. Your organization should have the culture and skills to identify and test assumptions - including your most ‘sacred’ beliefs. Every strategy is built on assumptions, but you don’t want them to be invisible; if you think you may be facing some blindspots, this is a place where an external perspective may be helpful.

And here are some tips for a successful DIY strat plan:

• Don't get bogged down in convention. We all have expectations around what a strat plan process 'should' look like. SWOT analysis, day-long retreats, trust-fall ice breakers . . . these are just design choices that may or may not suit your organization. Focus on the unique needs of your team and design a process that makes sense for who is in the room.
• Focus on purpose and ask 'why'. Always start and end with your organization's core purpose, and test assumptions with lots of 'but why?' questions. At the end of the day, strategy is just a theory of how you'll fulfill your core purpose, so if you stay grounded in that, you'll be okay.
• Push for decisions. Too many strategic planning processes fall short because they focus on brainstorming, but don't lead to any decisions. No decision making, no strategy! Push for the decision, and don't stop until you reach that point.
• Talk about trade-offs. It’s easy to paint a picture of what we want an organization to become or achieve. But unless you have ample resources at your disposal, most organizations are not in a position to ‘add to’ existing activities. So if we want to move toward a future where the organization or its impact looks different, we have to be willing to let go of something from the status quo. When you think you have your strategic direction mapped out, have a conversation about what you’re willing to let go of now, to embrace this direction? There is no strategy without trade-offs, and the more upfront you can be about them, the better positioned you’ll be for a strong strategy.
• Apply a project management lens to the process. There can be a lot of moving parts to creating a strategic plan, and people will be expected to work outside of their regular roles and activities. Get organized and keep everyone on the same page throughout the process.

Why Boards May Resist In-House Strategy

There are a number of reasons why a board may resist an internally-led strategic planning process, and the truth is that you won’t really know until you ask! But based on my experience, there are a few common reasons that boards tend to prefer a more formalized, consultant-led approach to strategic planning:

• Conventions are considered ‘best practice’. Most boards want to do the right thing, and in the face of common gaps around skill, capacity and infrastructure, boards will default to the ‘best practice’, which is usually just the conventional practice. That looks like your typical consultant-led process, and so that is what most boards are primed to consider ‘best practice’.
• Fulfilling governance role. Nearly every ‘governance 101’ training that I’ve encountered explicitly mentions that strategic planning is a board function. Now, this isn’t exactly true. Boards should ensure that an organization has a reasonable strategy in place that fits within the organization’s corporate purposes, but they do not need to develop that strategy themselves. It is perfectly okay for a board to delegate strategy to the ED or CEO, and then approve and monitor it. But most boards are sold the idea that they need to ‘own’ the strategy, and that influences their behaviour in this area.
• Low confidence in capacity. A board may be open to an internally-managed strategic planning process, but feel that the organization lacks the skills, capacity, or culture needed to pull it off. For example, if the organization has had to manage difficult board/staff relationships in the past, the board may believe that an impartial third party is needed to navigate a successful process.
• Lack of trust. It’s not uncommon for there to be a breakdown in trust and communication between a board and an ED. In this case, regardless of the drivers, the board may be concerned about being ‘sidelined’ in the strategic planning process, and may act defensively in their interactions with the ED. 
• Power dynamics. The unfortunate reality is that there is still a strong paternalistic culture in nonprofit governance spaces. This can translate into unhealthy power dynamics perpetuated by ego-driven board directors, in an environment where the ED’s skills and experience are not respected, and often, actively undermined. 

Next Steps

So in today’s submission, we have an ED, who is frustrated with a lack of progress from their board on strategic planning, wondering whether it’s a good idea to bring a draft strat plan to their board for discussion. I will say, no, this is not a good idea. For the reasons stated above, and because boards generally don’t like surprises, I predict that an unexpected strategic plan would be greeted like a flaming paper bag on the doorstep. But that doesn’t mean that you have to give up on the idea of leading a strategic plan internally, and it’s not to say that the board’s reticence isn’t frustrating! Here are a few other options to consider:

• Bring a draft process to the board: If you really want to kick-start some momentum with the board, you could try sharing an outline of the kind of strategic planning process that you want to lead. Not only would this give them a more concrete idea of what you’re proposing, but it would also provide some space for some more tangible feedback on what matters to the board in the process. And hopefully, if the board is not happy with the plan you produce, they will counter with their own timeline, which is still progress in the right direction.
• Discuss criteria for readiness: Using the list of criteria included above, have a conversation with your board about whether or not an internally-managed process makes sense for your organization. This will hopefully clarify where the board’s specific objections are, and help you understand how best to address them. 
• Make a compromise: We’re talking about internally vs. externally led processes like they are mutually exclusive, when that’s not the case at all! You can choose when and where in the process it makes sense to seek external support, and what parts you want to manage in-house, creating your own hybrid approach. For example, some organizations will hire external facilitators when a significant consultation is needed, then use the facilitator’s report to feed into their process. Other organizations may bring in a strategic advisor on retainer for a few months, to provide a bit of additional expertise and an external perspective throughout the project to check for blindspots. 

Conclusion

I’ll say it again: I think more nonprofits should be managing their strategic work in-house. And connected to that, we’re overdue for a re-think on the conventional ‘best practices’ for nonprofit strategic planning. Too often we are focused on ‘performing’ strategic planning, rather than building meaningful strategy for organizations. Do it yourself or get some help from a consultant, but at the end of the day, whatever process you use, whatever documentation you end up with, what matters is that your organization can work in a way that is focused, aligned, effective and sustainable. 

Big Takeaways:

• It’s okay to DIY your strat plan. Managing strategy work in-house is a totally viable option for many nonprofits. 
• Strategy is ground-zero for governance power struggles. When boards and EDs are working without trust, transparency and mutual support, strategic planning can quickly become a battleground where everyone loses.
• Focus on function over form. Forget about convention and ‘best practices’, and do whatever you need to do to create the strategy your organization needs.