This past week the readings for Leadership-Community really challenged some thoughts I had carried into my MBA program with me. I sought out my MBA largely to take a look at efficiencies in nonprofit work, because working for donors I wanted to be able to serve more with less resources, and really stretch the support of our donors to the greatest amount of work that could be done.
Last week I read segments from Walk Out Walk On. The premise is that sometimes when most people say something is hopeless or can't be done, there are some who feel there is possibility. When these people combine, great things happen. The book took us to different places around the world. The place that challenged me was Kafunda, Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe struggles with out of control inflation. I believe it was at such a rate that the author wrote, if you were going to buy a beer, and have a second, you better buy both at the same time, because by the time you are done with the first, the second would double in price.
A lady with roots in Zimbabwe carved off 30 acres from her ranch and created the Kafunda Village. You see, this area had been peppered with operations of efficiency by national development and relief agencies. The results of the "efficiently grown grain" long term mean that all the region was eating was grain, malnutrition broke out, and on top of that HIV and Aids was rampant, and purchasing food or Rxs was a bit out of the question due to the rapid inflation. The Kafunda Village gathered together and instead of being efficiency driven, they focused on resiliency. They returned to the gardening practices of their grandparents and found sustainable farming. They utilized outhouses to enrich the soil and began an orchard. They utilized these skills and came up with nutritional supplements to help those struggling with Aids and HIV.
This week I just kept struggling with the fact that there are many nonprofits that do have room to grow in business skills and efficiencies, but how far do you push it to remain socially sustainable. Its chemistry trying to create the right mix of social sustainability and efficiencies. How does a leader determine what the right amount is? How can you determine whether something looks great on paper now- but what are the long term ramifications?
I wrote down on a small notebook piece of paper "sustainable efficiency."
Then my mind wandered, as it often does, about collaborations. How do they play into sustainable efficiency? Do the mixing and binding of missions create a stronger chord, or does it work like a woven tapestry, that if one falls out, the whole thing begins to become unwoven?
I was stretched by my paper from last week- thinking about collaboration. I came up with a mental picture- the Master Plumber. I thought of each agency, each mission as a pipe that has a specific job- does a specific thing. Sometimes it feels like nonprofits are just so consumed by that little piece of pipe. So inwardly focused on general operations and "my service area". Its so defined, and at the same time, the definition gives limits. We must know and remain true to our missions. We must be fiscally responsible. The point I am trying to make is that if we know our mission as well as we should- couldn't we see how that mission fits easily with other like missions? Couldn't we, as a master plumber, say "Hey- we do this really well. You do that, but if we came in and plugged in right here within your services- well we either stop a leak or even expand services to further regions"...
I recently witnessed a proposal for collaboration that fell short. An agency A approached agency B with an opportunity to provide services for their clients. The services would help with the client's transition out of the programming, but really was just the next step beyond the program offering of Agency B. This funding also would come with new reporting criteria and create some hiccups for the way things are done at Agency B- all for clients that were already seemingly successfully transitioning. The collaboration fell outside of the current pipeline, and seems to be falling flat.
Yesterday as I was driving home from work, I had it on my mind, and thought- what have I learned from my MBA, that if I were in a place of decision making about this, that I could decide if this would be a collaboration worth pursuing, and is it a sustainable efficiency? I began to ask myself additional questions.
Agency B prepares its clients for independence. Would this aid in a transition out of the program or would it foster the spirit of dependence?
What percentage of clients, upon leaving the program, would really need assistance in this way?
What percentage of clients remain in the program, because they lack this assistance?
How much time do some of these clients remain in the program just because they lack this piece?
Could the program extend? Could case management and some services be offered still to these individuals if they transitioned early with this program?
Could the result be that we move individuals a little faster through the program, providing more opportunity for those on the wait list, and at the same time build the strength of services to program alumni?
Its a careful deliberation of trying to understand the story, why they do things the way they do, and the purposes for the kind of reporting they do and the kind of reporting they don't do. How do they ensure quality of service, to the most they can, with a long history and many more years to provide this service?
This is long, and perhaps too much information... but its me- trying to understand how history, sustainability, efficiency, scope and nonprofits all fit together. How do you honor each piece of the puzzle, and at the end honor the clients and the donors? This is the complexity of service...
No comments:
Post a Comment