Action Research in Nonprofit Consulting: Building Trust and Facilitating Change

Building Trust Through Dialogue

Dialogue has proven to be an important part of the trust-building process in consulting relationships. Through several conversations with the client about their situation, I was able to gain clarity and different perspectives regarding the challenges they face. These conversations also enabled the client to open up about more sensitive aspects of their situation—something they were initially reluctant to do. This openness proved valuable, as it revealed information that will inform the overall consultancy approach.

The client has reacted positively to this process, proceeding with measured caution. This is appropriate for the project, because as long as the client remains positive and receptive, the work is on track. The client has indicated interest in moving toward the first round of recommendations, which signals readiness to move beyond process discussion and see tangible insights. This requires shifting from explaining the methodology to demonstrating its value through preliminary findings.

One surprise has been how quickly the dialogue became open and substantive. I initially expected the client might be reluctant to engage, but they have opened relatively quickly about their business and the various dynamics surrounding it. This receptiveness reflects both their recognition that change is needed and their genuine commitment to the organization's mission. The next step is to bring ideas to the table, but in the form of dialogue rather than directives. By presenting preliminary thoughts that prepare the client for final recommendations, the process can continue moving forward. Action research is fundamentally about working with the client iteratively to produce recommendations, which means introducing new ideas gradually, testing them, and retaining what works best.

The Consultant's Role in Action Research

In this engagement, I took on the consultant role in response to the client's needs, though I initiated the relationship rather than the client approaching me. My client organization—a small nonprofit—wants to maximize operational efficiency by increasing donations and doing more with limited resources. After listening carefully to the organization, I identified several important underlying issues.

I am conducting action research, which means working collaboratively with the client to find solutions to their problems. The action research framework emphasizes that the consultant and client should work together as partners. The consultant brings external knowledge and perspective to help the client understand issues more clearly, while the client provides deep contextual knowledge and implementation capacity.

In this situation, I serve as an expert in business processes and organizational development, drawing on my knowledge to help identify problems and potential solutions. However, expertise alone is insufficient. The consultant must facilitate the client's own discovery and buy-in rather than imposing external solutions. This collaborative approach is especially critical in volunteer-led organizations, where stakeholders must choose to implement recommendations for them to succeed.

Understanding People and Organizational Dynamics

The questions that had the greatest impact on the client were personal ones. Organizational theory teaches that organizations are ultimately comprised of individuals, and it is these individuals who drive both successes and failures. No amount of systems or theory can compensate if the people within an organization lack capability for their roles.

Small nonprofits face particular challenges in this regard. They are typically driven by a handful of key people, and these individuals cannot always simply be replaced if they are unable or unwilling to adapt or learn. Consulting in such settings differs from traditional process-improvement work because success requires changing people—their mindsets, skills, and roles—not just implementing new systems.

The most effective consulting questions therefore address the people involved and what they can do to improve organizational performance. In my initial approach, I focused primarily on problem-solving from a process perspective, but I came to recognize that this was insufficient. My own biases also affect how I view organizational structure. I tend to prefer working with people who possess certain traits, and when I see individuals I consider ineffective, my instinct is to remove them. These biases necessarily shape how I might structure an organization.

However, I had to challenge another assumption: that older volunteers in this organization lacked capacity or willingness to learn new skills. Upon reflection, I realized this bias might be false. If given sufficient motivation and alignment with the organization's mission, these individuals might well be willing and able to learn new roles. Their tendency to play to their strengths reflected inertia and evolved role definitions rather than fixed inability. The organization needed to restructure, but people could adapt if they remained committed to its mission.

Developing Shared Objectives

The first step was to develop a clear set of objectives with the organization's leadership. These objectives would not flow from what the organization currently did or had done in the past, but from what it wanted to accomplish in the future. I initially considered using appreciative inquiry—a strengths-based approach—but ultimately recognized this as unnecessarily restrictive given the organization's need for genuine change.

The action research framework proved ideal for this phase because it allowed close collaboration with the organization's leaders and influencers to develop objectives with genuine buy-in. This is essential: it is impossible simply to impose objectives on volunteers without risking their withdrawal. They must play a role in creating objectives to maintain the motivation to pursue them.

I developed both short-term and long-term objectives, which allowed the action research process to unfold iteratively. Early iterations would focus on achievable short-term goals, gradually shifting toward longer-term aspirations. The organization first discussed long-term objectives—which included increasing funding, finding new program mandates, and shifting resources toward areas of greater need—and then used these to frame short-term objectives.

The long-term vision was for the organization to evolve over time, potentially moving away from older responsibilities with declining demand toward emerging areas of need. Much of the work involved brainstorming new directions and planning follow-up research to identify which opportunities best aligned with organizational capacity and mission. This mirrors how a business would assess its assets and evaluate new markets to enter. In this case, the organization has considerable financial and organizational assets that may not currently be fully utilized.

Sorting out objectives remains an ongoing process. The client needs time to fully investigate options while also making decisions on a reasonable timeline, all while ensuring buy-in from key stakeholders. Many of these individuals are oriented toward thorough research and careful decision-making. Notably, people seem genuinely energized by the prospect of new opportunities. The timeline for initial objectives is tight, which is positive because the organization is already beginning to shift its culture away from past inertia. In early meetings, people are starting to reimagine the organization and, importantly, to examine their own roles within it.