On my 2009 to do list is to start reading things by Malcolm Gladwell. All the more after reading this article by Fred Smith. He takes off on Gladwell's book Blink and describes how there are philanthropists who have the innate ability to ascertain the value of applicants with remarkable intuition and speed. As most of us become more and more involved in increasingly detailed analysis, there is something very appealing about the possibility of a more informal and accurate approach.
I would love to know more about this. Does anyone have experience to add?
Showing posts with label Evaluation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evaluation. Show all posts
Monday, January 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Preparation and Spontaneity
Two contrasting episodes today:
1. Spent an enjoyable with Hugh Brewster of World Vision Canada's Partners to End Child Poverty program and Scott Jones from Micah House reviewing some material from the LEAP workshop that Scott and I attended with Hugh a couple weeks ago. LEAP is an intensive process in developing project designs that is based on a large amount of research and preparation. It is a major undertaking to complete their model, but one that will result in as reliable a design as can ever be hoped for.
2. Read this article from Gordon MacDonald on the importance and value of intuition in leadership. He emphasizes the need for acting with conviction at times even when the apparent reality may conflict with your inner sensitivity.
These represent a tension I feel in every leadership situation in which I find myself. When is it appropriate to invest significant time and effort in working through a carefully developed strategy and when should I take the risk of going with gut instinct?
I like what MacDonald says about developing a stronger sense of intuition. I also like Hugh's emphasis on doing proper diligence. I can think of times in my life when I regret not doing both.
Effective leadership is always a matter of existing within the tensions of each situation and acting with courage in light of the obvious and subtle pressures and risks. Those that get it "right" most often are most effective.
Whether the tensions are between more research/taking opportunity; respecting budget/acting in faith; pursuing the vision/caring for the people; or any of the other variations on the theme; ultimately leaders are often those who are willing to define the issue at hand and decide among the options with a willingness for responsibility.
In the best of situations we are able to do our preparation deeply and then rely on intuition to determine which of the choices to pursue.
1. Spent an enjoyable with Hugh Brewster of World Vision Canada's Partners to End Child Poverty program and Scott Jones from Micah House reviewing some material from the LEAP workshop that Scott and I attended with Hugh a couple weeks ago. LEAP is an intensive process in developing project designs that is based on a large amount of research and preparation. It is a major undertaking to complete their model, but one that will result in as reliable a design as can ever be hoped for.
2. Read this article from Gordon MacDonald on the importance and value of intuition in leadership. He emphasizes the need for acting with conviction at times even when the apparent reality may conflict with your inner sensitivity.
These represent a tension I feel in every leadership situation in which I find myself. When is it appropriate to invest significant time and effort in working through a carefully developed strategy and when should I take the risk of going with gut instinct?
I like what MacDonald says about developing a stronger sense of intuition. I also like Hugh's emphasis on doing proper diligence. I can think of times in my life when I regret not doing both.
Effective leadership is always a matter of existing within the tensions of each situation and acting with courage in light of the obvious and subtle pressures and risks. Those that get it "right" most often are most effective.
Whether the tensions are between more research/taking opportunity; respecting budget/acting in faith; pursuing the vision/caring for the people; or any of the other variations on the theme; ultimately leaders are often those who are willing to define the issue at hand and decide among the options with a willingness for responsibility.
In the best of situations we are able to do our preparation deeply and then rely on intuition to determine which of the choices to pursue.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Philanthropy Monopoly??
This from Fred Smith (who posts a lot of interesting articles on Facebook).
It raises some excellent questions about the role of foundations relative to those we desire to help. Obviously there is bound to be some question about the quality of the work done by the Gates Foundation. Just as there is criticism of Bono's work.
Regardless of scale all philanthropists need to consider how we use our leverage of research and resources wisely.
In one of my former roles, as a youth pastor, I used to tell the parents of the teens I worked with that I expected them to know their own child better than I did (which was true more often than not); but I was generally more knowledgeable about teens in general than most parents were (also usually the case).
The same may be true in this world. Over time I expect to become quite informed about the issues of nonprofits, relief and development, and particularly the role of leaders and leadership in those organizations. But I will never be more aware of the specifics of any of our resources or partners than they are. I need to bear that in mind.
It raises some excellent questions about the role of foundations relative to those we desire to help. Obviously there is bound to be some question about the quality of the work done by the Gates Foundation. Just as there is criticism of Bono's work.
Regardless of scale all philanthropists need to consider how we use our leverage of research and resources wisely.
In one of my former roles, as a youth pastor, I used to tell the parents of the teens I worked with that I expected them to know their own child better than I did (which was true more often than not); but I was generally more knowledgeable about teens in general than most parents were (also usually the case).
The same may be true in this world. Over time I expect to become quite informed about the issues of nonprofits, relief and development, and particularly the role of leaders and leadership in those organizations. But I will never be more aware of the specifics of any of our resources or partners than they are. I need to bear that in mind.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
On a lighter note...
Recent posts have been fairly earnest. This should remedy that trend.
Re: Evaluation of Non-profits/ministries;
Cartoonist: Ed Koehler, 1984 and Christianity Today International/BuildingChurchLeaders.com. Used with permission
Re: Evaluation of Non-profits/ministries;
Cartoonist: Ed Koehler, 1984 and Christianity Today International/BuildingChurchLeaders.com. Used with permission
Friday, May 16, 2008
Measurement: The great dilemma
A recurring theme in the last few months is the challenge and need for nonprofit and ministry organizations to find a decisive way to self-evaluate. By extension, Catalyst and other grantmakers need criteria to evaluate not only applications but also the outcomes of projects after they receive funding.
There are a few particular difficulties in this:
-Reluctance: Nonprofit leaders are largely involved in matters and issues that are driven by compassion rather than efficiency. Many times they are resistant to the "corporate" emphasis on numerical evaluation. In my years at camps I saw the anger that was prompted when someone from the board asked how many campers had made faith commitments during a particular program. Staff found that offensive and felt it diminished the nature of relationships to something merely transactional and manipulative.
-Ambiguity: Social services and spiritual projects are notoriously difficult to quantify. How do you measure the benefits of a relationship? Rarely is there a single point of emphasis and the people involved may all have different value and priority for the varied outcomes.
-Tools: Cultural change doesn't lend itself to a simple bar graph. There is a shortage of recognizable methods for identifying and communicating the kinds of outputs and outcomes we're interested in supporting.
-Objectivity: Nonprofit workers are almost always passionate about their work. (We wouldn't partner with any that aren't). Their clientele are understandably grateful for the most part for what is being accomplished. It is a lot to ask of either of those groups to provide a relatively unbiased perspective.
-Hope: As may be the case in other fields (but I suspect is exaggerated in these ones), nonprofit and ministry people are optimists. They look for the signs of life in even the most desperate situations. It's a necessary prerequisite of much off what they do, but when applied to evaluation is clearly distorted.
-Narrative: When numbers are hard to generate or interpret we rely on stories. Funding for charities has always been based more on tugging the heart strings than swaying the intellect. The traditional pitch of "a sob story and a slideshow" is deeply entrenched and typically effective. Anyone can come up with at least one compelling account of someone who's life is being bettered from their efforts.
Despite all of these impediments there are efforts being made widely to develop useful and relevant ways of measuring the results of nonprofits. As I wrote about previously, Jim Collins has produced a monograph of Good to Great aimed specifically at the social sector where he argues for the necessity of determining standards of evaluation that are measurable. It is a very live discussion among the professionals I met at the recent PIGS conference as well.
Prior to the start of Catalyst I was involved in starting a new church in our community. We were under the authority and support of the church where I had been staff for several years; and I reported to the leadership there. When after more than a year our new congregation wasn't significantly growing the leadership began to question the wisdom in continuing. Of course I resisted. I could see the sparks of potential and the impact we were having on the few people who were involved. Ultimately the decision was made to close the new church. It was difficult for all involved (new congregation, myself, and the leaders of the larger church), and was made all the more difficult because there was no standard of measure by which to evaluate what was happening.
I admit that I find the process of determining objective measurement criteria for matters of spirituality and social justice to be both daunting and dangerous. Obviously we don't want to reduce the efforts of our partners to spreadsheet entries. At the same time, I have become increasingly aware that with those criteria established and agreed upon there is a freedom to pursue a vision with greater confidence that you have defined your purpose and won't be dissuaded by the inevitable swings of energy and enthusiasm.
I am eager to work with our partners to figure out how to farily and helpfully evaluate their honourable efforts.
There are a few particular difficulties in this:
-Reluctance: Nonprofit leaders are largely involved in matters and issues that are driven by compassion rather than efficiency. Many times they are resistant to the "corporate" emphasis on numerical evaluation. In my years at camps I saw the anger that was prompted when someone from the board asked how many campers had made faith commitments during a particular program. Staff found that offensive and felt it diminished the nature of relationships to something merely transactional and manipulative.
-Ambiguity: Social services and spiritual projects are notoriously difficult to quantify. How do you measure the benefits of a relationship? Rarely is there a single point of emphasis and the people involved may all have different value and priority for the varied outcomes.
-Tools: Cultural change doesn't lend itself to a simple bar graph. There is a shortage of recognizable methods for identifying and communicating the kinds of outputs and outcomes we're interested in supporting.
-Objectivity: Nonprofit workers are almost always passionate about their work. (We wouldn't partner with any that aren't). Their clientele are understandably grateful for the most part for what is being accomplished. It is a lot to ask of either of those groups to provide a relatively unbiased perspective.
-Hope: As may be the case in other fields (but I suspect is exaggerated in these ones), nonprofit and ministry people are optimists. They look for the signs of life in even the most desperate situations. It's a necessary prerequisite of much off what they do, but when applied to evaluation is clearly distorted.
-Narrative: When numbers are hard to generate or interpret we rely on stories. Funding for charities has always been based more on tugging the heart strings than swaying the intellect. The traditional pitch of "a sob story and a slideshow" is deeply entrenched and typically effective. Anyone can come up with at least one compelling account of someone who's life is being bettered from their efforts.
Despite all of these impediments there are efforts being made widely to develop useful and relevant ways of measuring the results of nonprofits. As I wrote about previously, Jim Collins has produced a monograph of Good to Great aimed specifically at the social sector where he argues for the necessity of determining standards of evaluation that are measurable. It is a very live discussion among the professionals I met at the recent PIGS conference as well.
Prior to the start of Catalyst I was involved in starting a new church in our community. We were under the authority and support of the church where I had been staff for several years; and I reported to the leadership there. When after more than a year our new congregation wasn't significantly growing the leadership began to question the wisdom in continuing. Of course I resisted. I could see the sparks of potential and the impact we were having on the few people who were involved. Ultimately the decision was made to close the new church. It was difficult for all involved (new congregation, myself, and the leaders of the larger church), and was made all the more difficult because there was no standard of measure by which to evaluate what was happening.
I admit that I find the process of determining objective measurement criteria for matters of spirituality and social justice to be both daunting and dangerous. Obviously we don't want to reduce the efforts of our partners to spreadsheet entries. At the same time, I have become increasingly aware that with those criteria established and agreed upon there is a freedom to pursue a vision with greater confidence that you have defined your purpose and won't be dissuaded by the inevitable swings of energy and enthusiasm.
I am eager to work with our partners to figure out how to farily and helpfully evaluate their honourable efforts.
Friday, April 25, 2008
What We're Hoping to "C"
It was very nearly a month ago when I set out to use this space to describe how we've identified our priorities for funding and other support. In the unlikely possibility that you've been checking back looking for the rest of those thoughts I apologize for the delay and hope that what's been posted in the interim has been worth your while.
There are essentially 4 qualities we are looking for in people and projects: Creativity, Commitment, Compatibility, and Compelling.
Creativity: We want to be involved with innovators and people who are doing something that is novel. We appreciate the risk involved in breaking new ground and love to see people explore solutions that bring together ideas from different places. An example would be Courtney Mowat from Imagine Jewellery and her dream of using jewellery design as a tool to help women break free from the sex trade.
Commitment: Leadership requires time, effort, personal sacrifice, and passion. We want to support people who demonstrate these characteristics and help them continue to develop over the long term. This week I was able to spend some time with Myles Sergeant from Shelter Health Network. He is a talented physician who has chosen to spend his career working with the homeless and vulnerable population that many of his professional peers prefer to avoid. He also manages the complex structures and processes of the network. He could have a higher salary and less frustration working in a typical family practice; but he believes meeting these needs is worth the costs.
Compatible: In order for us to become partners we need to be able to agree on the value of the work being done. We are often asked if we are a Christian foundation. We are Christians, but we don't limit our support to people who share our faith. Like our friends at Micah House, we believe our faith calls us to help people without imposing specific spiritual expectations or conditions.
Compelling: Ultimately, with the enormous variety of needs and opportunities around us, we become involved with people and projects that engage us with stories that reach our hearts. We want to know that our involvement makes a meaningful difference in the lives of people, and hearing those reports (in person where possible) is a large part of what makes this satisfying work for us. David and Joanna Morrison's work in Malawi has been particularly inspiring.
Whether it is candidates for our mentoring program, scholarship applicants, or possible funding partnerships; we are always enthusiastic about those that are Creative, Committed, Compatible, and Compelling.
There are essentially 4 qualities we are looking for in people and projects: Creativity, Commitment, Compatibility, and Compelling.
Creativity: We want to be involved with innovators and people who are doing something that is novel. We appreciate the risk involved in breaking new ground and love to see people explore solutions that bring together ideas from different places. An example would be Courtney Mowat from Imagine Jewellery and her dream of using jewellery design as a tool to help women break free from the sex trade.
Commitment: Leadership requires time, effort, personal sacrifice, and passion. We want to support people who demonstrate these characteristics and help them continue to develop over the long term. This week I was able to spend some time with Myles Sergeant from Shelter Health Network. He is a talented physician who has chosen to spend his career working with the homeless and vulnerable population that many of his professional peers prefer to avoid. He also manages the complex structures and processes of the network. He could have a higher salary and less frustration working in a typical family practice; but he believes meeting these needs is worth the costs.
Compatible: In order for us to become partners we need to be able to agree on the value of the work being done. We are often asked if we are a Christian foundation. We are Christians, but we don't limit our support to people who share our faith. Like our friends at Micah House, we believe our faith calls us to help people without imposing specific spiritual expectations or conditions.
Compelling: Ultimately, with the enormous variety of needs and opportunities around us, we become involved with people and projects that engage us with stories that reach our hearts. We want to know that our involvement makes a meaningful difference in the lives of people, and hearing those reports (in person where possible) is a large part of what makes this satisfying work for us. David and Joanna Morrison's work in Malawi has been particularly inspiring.
Whether it is candidates for our mentoring program, scholarship applicants, or possible funding partnerships; we are always enthusiastic about those that are Creative, Committed, Compatible, and Compelling.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Evaluating Outcomes
One of the challenges for our work is trying to figure out how to evaluate not only the proposals and opportunities we come across, but(even more difficult) evaluating organizations and projects that we are supporting. This is an ongoing challenge in this field, as I've commented on before.
In a couple weeks I'll be attending a conference for grant-making professionals that concludes with an afternoon discussion about "outcome based evaluation" and efforts to develop more consistent and reliable ways to determine value and success in fields that don't lend themselves easily to numeric criteria. I'm very interested to learn how others are working with this.
Last night I had an excellent reminder of this in my own life. Two years ago I left a job as a youth pastor where I'd been for six years. It was a job I loved, although it was demanding. I made my best efforts to help teenagers discover the truth and grace of Jesus and understand how to live out their identities as authentic followers of Jesus, not just good church people. Last night I got together with one of the guys who had been in that group and is now at university. Over the course of an excellent conversation (and some very good chicken wings) we caught up on our lives and I saw clearly in him some of the perspectives and character qualities I'd been trying to pass on for six years. It was extremely gratifying to recognise that in him. When he graduated a lot of that stuff wasn't very apparent.
It seems to me that when working with people the most meaningful changes often take a lot of time. Projects can be evaluated based on specific time bound criteria; but lives changed according to an imposed timeline. Leaders need to develop a long term mentality and understand that results may not be apparent until long after the opportunity for recognition has passed.
In a couple weeks I'll be attending a conference for grant-making professionals that concludes with an afternoon discussion about "outcome based evaluation" and efforts to develop more consistent and reliable ways to determine value and success in fields that don't lend themselves easily to numeric criteria. I'm very interested to learn how others are working with this.
Last night I had an excellent reminder of this in my own life. Two years ago I left a job as a youth pastor where I'd been for six years. It was a job I loved, although it was demanding. I made my best efforts to help teenagers discover the truth and grace of Jesus and understand how to live out their identities as authentic followers of Jesus, not just good church people. Last night I got together with one of the guys who had been in that group and is now at university. Over the course of an excellent conversation (and some very good chicken wings) we caught up on our lives and I saw clearly in him some of the perspectives and character qualities I'd been trying to pass on for six years. It was extremely gratifying to recognise that in him. When he graduated a lot of that stuff wasn't very apparent.
It seems to me that when working with people the most meaningful changes often take a lot of time. Projects can be evaluated based on specific time bound criteria; but lives changed according to an imposed timeline. Leaders need to develop a long term mentality and understand that results may not be apparent until long after the opportunity for recognition has passed.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Measuring Results
Almost everyone who gives their life to the benefit of others sometimes struggles with the matter of significance. Lives influenced are rarely definitive and the process is at least as full of heartbreak as it is with glory.
I'm just finishing watching Mr. Holland's Opus again. It is inspiring, even is it may be somewhat contrived at the end in a predictable Hollywood manner.
I love what this movie honours: long term commitment, investing in the dreams of others, leaving aside personal desires at times, relationships as more important than tangible outcomes, challenging authority with passion and wisdom... the list goes on.
I also appreciate that for the first 2/3 of the movie the lead character is obviously deeply flawed. He repeatedly chooses the encouragements of his work over the frustrations of his family. He's tempted to infidelity and crosses some lines he shouldn't. He's angry, sarcastic, and unfulfilled. I almost would have preferred if it hadn't all come together so completely later. It would have been more honest to the people I know who do wonderful things but remain imperfect themselves.
That's not to devalue life change. If we didn't believe in transformation most of us would go get "real" jobs. I just like the honesty of heroes with clay feet. It's quite Biblical.
Finally, there's the finale scene when Mr. Holland sees for the first time just how much his life has meant. Far too few of us receive recognition for our efforts, at least in the ways that we would most like. Perhaps that's for the best after all.
The desire for recognition, to be significant in the lives of others, can be a quiet but damaging temptation. It is a sobering moment when the minister realizes he is more interested in being the one helping than in seeing the person be helped.
This is why we take it by faith that it is not our calling to be successful, to change lives or get results; though we do acknowledge those as desirable. Somehow we strive to long for the simple words "Well done, good and faithful servant", spoken by one who knows our every frailty and loves us still.
I'm just finishing watching Mr. Holland's Opus again. It is inspiring, even is it may be somewhat contrived at the end in a predictable Hollywood manner.
I love what this movie honours: long term commitment, investing in the dreams of others, leaving aside personal desires at times, relationships as more important than tangible outcomes, challenging authority with passion and wisdom... the list goes on.
I also appreciate that for the first 2/3 of the movie the lead character is obviously deeply flawed. He repeatedly chooses the encouragements of his work over the frustrations of his family. He's tempted to infidelity and crosses some lines he shouldn't. He's angry, sarcastic, and unfulfilled. I almost would have preferred if it hadn't all come together so completely later. It would have been more honest to the people I know who do wonderful things but remain imperfect themselves.
That's not to devalue life change. If we didn't believe in transformation most of us would go get "real" jobs. I just like the honesty of heroes with clay feet. It's quite Biblical.
Finally, there's the finale scene when Mr. Holland sees for the first time just how much his life has meant. Far too few of us receive recognition for our efforts, at least in the ways that we would most like. Perhaps that's for the best after all.
The desire for recognition, to be significant in the lives of others, can be a quiet but damaging temptation. It is a sobering moment when the minister realizes he is more interested in being the one helping than in seeing the person be helped.
This is why we take it by faith that it is not our calling to be successful, to change lives or get results; though we do acknowledge those as desirable. Somehow we strive to long for the simple words "Well done, good and faithful servant", spoken by one who knows our every frailty and loves us still.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
