A recent article in the New York Times talked about the shift in focus of the Hudson-Webber Foundation in downtown Detroit. For years, Hudson-Webber has been funding organizations in the Detroit metro area. Given the changing philanthropic and economic landscape, however, Hudson-Webber has had to start playing a new role: "picking winners and losers."

One of the most notable current trends in the nonprofit arena is for donors to look for a "return on investment" for their charitable giving. They want to know that their donation to one organization will yield social impact. More than that, they want to know that your organization will yield a greater impact than another cause to which they could donate.

This is a positive trend for sensible- dare I say- strategic charitable giving. However, the outcome results or impact measures are not the indicators that leaders of nonprofits should be managing. Rather, leaders need to focus on the underlying cause and effect linkages that drive impact.

For years, management frameworks from the business sector have been foisted upon unsuspecting social sector organizations. Not surprisingly, many of them have proven wholly inappropriate for organizations that are not driven purely by financial motives. So why has the Balanced Scorecard been such a success in the social sector?

There are a lot of tools out there that can help you make something as murky as "strategy" a little more clear. But what should you choose? There's "theory of change." And "logic models." And if you are a regular reader of this blog, we've given you an earful about "strategy maps."

Yesterday, Ascendant hosted a nonprofit and government networking breakfast that was focused on performance management. Over 80 people confirmed their attendance, and Dr. David Norton, creator of the Balanced Scorecard, gave a keynote address.

We heard you! We were fortunate to have over 75 of you at our breakfast in July, and we have spoken to many of you about your challenges and goals for performance management. The feedback was resounding: you would like to develop or improve your Balanced Scorecard programs. We also heard that you would like to learn from each other and do so in a cost effective manner. For this reason, we are launching two community-based training sessions on October 14th.

I've worked with many Balanced Scorecard organizations, and when it comes time to think about Learning and Growth (sometimes called the People perspective), leaders inevitably come up with an objective called "Hiring, Developing, and Retaining Talent." The measure can be different for different organizations depending on their strategy, but there is always a discussion about whether "employee turnover" should be the right measure for the organization.

Based on our successful breakfast in Boston, we are pleased to announce that we have begun inviting nonprofit and government leaders in the greater Washington area to attend an executive breakfast on managing performance with the Balanced Scorecard. Our keynote speaker is the Balanced Scorecard co-creator, David Norton. The breakfast will be on September 24, 2008.

We've all heard the adage "what gets measured, gets managed." But how do you know if you're measuring the right things? And therefore managing the right things? For many organizations, measurement exists simply for the sake of measurement. And that's a key reason why so few organizations are able to acheive strategic success.

How many times have you attended a "strategy" meeting only to fall asleep halfway through? What is it about strategy that makes meetings so incredibly boring? Well, because most of the time, meetings about strategy are about anything but strategy.Instead, "strategy" meetings are about dry and uninteresting market factiods, a review of last month / quarter / year's operations, inane "visioning" sessions that are disconnected with reality, or some other perversion that only serves to waste precious time. But strategy -- and strategy meetings -- needn't be like this. Because strategy (done right and presented right) is the antithesis of boring. Strategy is about making the difficult choices about how you're going to run your organization and how you're going to make a difference. As we've said countless times on this blog, just having a good strategy isn't enough. It's how you execute on that strategy that is the critical differentiator between successful organizations and organizations that just plod along from year to year (at best) or fail spectacularly. And as Winston Churchill famously said, "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." And that's what an effective strategy review meeting is all about. Seeing how you're doing on the strategy and making the changes necessary to set things right. So, without further ado, here's our suggestions on running an effective meeting:

1. Agenda based on strategy A good strategy review meeting is just that: a meeting that's based on your strategy. So craft the agenda based on your strategy map and your set of strategic initiatives. Cover the issues that are critical and acknowledge those that are on track. Stay focused on strategy and don't let the meeting get derailed by operational concerns.
2. Topics outlined in advance of meetings Good meetings don't just happen, they're planned. So get the information out before the meeting happens and make sure people have time to review it. And don't take excuses for why people haven't come prepared to the meeting. Don't tolerate the "question the number" game -- instead make fact-based decisions based on the data you have.
3. Decisions documented Keep a running log of what was discussed and what decisions were made. Also note who was accountable for what and when the action item is supposed to be completed. If the meeting gets off track, use a "parking lot" flipchart to record the issue and schedule another meeting if necessary to discuss that issue.
4. Follow-up monitored How many times have you covered the same ground meeting after meeting? The key is to monitor the decisions that you made in one meeting and to create a culture of followup in your organization where closing out on action items is expected before the next meeting.

Of course, this is not a change that can or will happen overnight. It is a cultural change for many organizations, and therefore requires time to set in. But if you start putting strategy -- and your strategy map -- at the center of your meeting agenda, you'll see an evolution of meetings from tiring to invigorating. If you'd like to check out an in-depth guide, check out How To Lead Effective Strategy Review Meetings.