strategy development for nonprofit organizations

Strategy Development
Big Splash
Making a big splash to establish a new policy has its risks, but this approach can be advantageous as well. The current situation is that there are only a few volunteers working with the organization regularly and they are facing burnout. So there is a problem that may break soon, and threaten the ability of the organization to do its work. The training seminars are going to be a barrier for those who are already working to continue, and a further barrier to attracting new people to do this work. There is no particular evidence that the seminars are going to solve any problem at all, so I would treat them with some skepticism. This is especially true in that 75% of volunteers are one-offs, and the number of one-offs might drop to near zero if they have to attend the seminars before volunteering.
The advantages of a big splash to change policy are evident from organizational change literature – to bring about organizational change sometimes requires shaking up complacency. Thankfully, literature also shows that public service motivation is closely aligned with the ability to successfully implement change. Public service motivation means that the people in the organization are motivated internally to perform their mission and therefore are willing to take necessary steps to achieve that mission. This makes them more open to change efforts (Wright, Christensen & Isett, 2011). Thus, if there is high public service motivation within the organization, it may not be necessary to bring about a perception of crisis in order to create the motivation for change (Carroll & Hatakenaka, 2001).
Preferences of the Advisory Board
The preferences of the advisory board could impact on the strategy development process, but not likely. The board’s preferences may, however, impact on the strategy execution process. The strategy development process should focus on determining the best strategy for the organization to carry out its mission. The board may or may not be involved – board contributions to organizational strategy can vary significantly. The advisory board should be aware of the situation and their advice should be requested, but ultimately an advisory board advises, they don’t run the organization.
Their preferences are more likely to show up in the execution of the strategy, as this is where they can add value. The board members will have a variety of different experiences and skill sets that can help pin down an appropriate approach to the challenges that the organization faces. They should be leveraged for their knowledge and experiences, not their opinions, which means that they have greater insight into more tactical matters.
When they do give advice, again, I would stress that personal preference plays very little role in running an effective organization. I would want to make decisions based on data, knowledge, skills and experience. Personal preferences often derive from these different things, but ultimately subjective opinions are not as useful for running things as data and reason.

Stakeholder Interests
The board should be comprised of people with different stakeholder perspectives, of course, as that is one of the biggest points of value that the board can offer. As such, there is a high likelihood that there will be differences. However, the board members should not be active stakeholders. If they are, then that sort of puts them in a conflict of interest. A board should actually be as impartial as possible, and act with the best interest of the organization in mind. As such, I would be skeptical of any board member with a vested interest in a non-profit organization.
Where the board can add value is representing different stakeholder interests, for example someone who has a lot of experience working with veterans. Such stakeholder interests should be brought to the fore so that any potential conflicts are identified. Furthermore, it is important that these conflicts are addressed by turning back to the organization’s mission. Ideally, stakeholder interests can be aligned around the organziation’s mission, which should provide a guidance for aligning organizational actions.
If all stakeholder interests support the organization’s mission but still conflict, that might be a matter of approach. For example, there appears to be a conflict between the introduction of seminars and the need for more volunteers – the seminars may have value in providing better service for veterans but that only works when there are enough volunteers willing to take the seminar for that to matter.
The process of working through such stakeholder conflicts could then be quite difficult, but it will require open communication and dialogue. There are several conflict resolution tactics but open debate is one of the more powerful ones. Further, somebody has to be in charge to make the final decision, and if that requires compromise or simply rejecting some stakeholder concerns, if there is a clear process for decision making then it is more likely that the organization can get to the point where a decision is made.
All told, the organization is facing some challenges, and new challenges are starting to arise. This is definitely going to create a difficult situation for the executive director, but if there are clear means by which to identify and resolve conflicts, then that will be helpful.
References
Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Carroll, J. & Hatakenata, S. (2001) Driving organizational change in the midst of a crisis. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved March 21, 2020 from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/driving-organizational-change-in-the-midst-of-crisis/
Wright, B., Christensen, R. & Isett, K. (2011) Motivated to adapt? The role of public service motivation as employees face organizational change.