In the Crutchfield-Grant reading, the author distinguishes between two types of organizations in relation to their innovation/adaptation capacity. These two types were the "free spirits" and the "MBA's." Now considering we're are all pursuing a degree that is only one letter away from latter mentioned innovation/adaptation style, it would seem that we ARE being conditioned to accept a more structured or managerial way to foster or promote innovation. Indeed, our Charity Navigator Project and the multitude of articles that we have read in the past few weeks propagate the claim that innovative or adaptive strategies need to be measured, planned, and evaluated to be considered as "effective."
My concern with this MBA mentality is that it might stifle or discourage nonprofits from pursuing creative innovations or adaptations. Indeed, a theoretical means for measuring or planning might not exist for nonprofits who wish to pursue a 'true' innovation. I believe that a framework defining effectiveness is a necessity in today's society, but could such a framework also suppress an organization's willingness to innovate?
What do you guys think?
P.S. I have been attempting to read Ayn Rand recently, and might explain my post a bit.
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteYour post actually made me think of Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron.” But I think you asked a good question. At the Tioga County Historical Society I know that limited resources do stifle creativity to a point. A lot of times we have to plan programming to fit grants. But I think a number of programing grants do allow for some innovation. For example one grant we have been awarded asks only to keep the program related to children and the town of Owego. So we actually do have some freedom to be innovative and we decided to use it produce an architecture program. There are about 12 architectural style examples in the town of Owego alone, and with some tailoring it will appeal to adults as well.
I think maybe people who are innovative with their funding solicitation do some true innovation. If you have to continually rely on a particular foundation or other source for funding, then you’re limited in what you can do. I think perhaps the people who really want to be innovative will be innovative in how they obtain funding. That’s probably a good place to start with innovation – at the funding level, not the output level.
I think what might also harm the innovative spirit is not the planning stage, but during the evaluation stage – when the idea might not have lived up to the hopes. The Share Our Strength example from chapter 6 in Forces for Good had some good examples that relate to this topic. But even then people like Allison Fine are trying to make “failing” (or at least discussing it openly) cool. http://www.allisonfine.com/2011/03/22/a-site-chock-full-of-failures/ Hopefully this trend will become more accepted – hard when resources are limited and there’s a recession gong on. I hope some human service students respond to your post, I am mainly looking at it from the arts and culture sub-sector – we’re used to working around stifling MBA paradigms.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe same thoughts crossed my mind as I read this week's readings. It almost seems that as we progress through the semester, there is either no right answer to effectiveness, or that every answer IS right. Basically what I'm saying is the same idea you propose in your post. Framework seems as if it is needed in almost everything we do as managers. Yet, being innovative takes you away from the formal framework. What's right and what's wrong?
It has been truly challenging for me to get a grip on effectiveness this semester. All the different scenarios and ideas of what is effective and what is not has made my head spin like crazy.
I guess the reason I am so into this is because I am a very structured manager here in my job. At the same time, I encourage my staff to think out of the box and come up with new ways to do things. So, my directions are two sided. This makes it difficult for staff members in my opinion. This is only one area of the University. I cannot imagine the complexity of leading a nonprofit organization that needs to be re-vamped. We could practice Kanter and Fine, Crutchfield and Grant, and ALL the other authors we have touched on this semester and quite possibly come right back to where we started in the first place.
In the end my thoughts are pretty much to pick a strategy and go with it. Be consistent, and don't backtrack until you find things are not working.
The MBA mentality can stifle a well-established organization in pursing creative innovations. For instance, it would be more difficult for the Family & Children’s Service of Ithaca (organization existed for 125 years) than a new nonprofit organization in pursing creative innovations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a new nonprofit organization might not be stifled by a MBA mentality. In fact, a business-entrepreneur interested in establishing a nonprofit organization may acknowledge that innovation is key in establishing a nonprofit organization. The business entrepreneur and/or manager seeking a nonprofit should be aware that the ‘straightforward’ business models that are established in the business sector don’t always apply to the nonprofit sector. As noted in PAFF551, creating and sustaining a nonprofit organization tends to be more difficult than creating and sustaining a for-profit business organization. The business-entrepreneur or manager should be aware and take serious the sustainability nonprofit organizations endure in the 21st century.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCrutchfield and Grant state "Many nonprofits fail to find this delicate balance. They are either so freewheeling that their cultures are more chaotic than creative, or they are so structured that they become hidebound and paralyzed. But a high-impact nonprofits are able to work with this tension" (p.148) I agree with you Dan when you say "MBA mentality is that it might stifle or discourage nonprofits from pursuing creative innovations or adaptations" but as the authors point out, in order to be successful at adaptation an organization must find a balance. I don't think it matters so much whether an organization is a "free spirit" or an "MBA" as whether or not they find this balance. I think it is necessary for organizations to make goals and develop performance measurements to reach those goals, but they should also be thinking about what the data they are collecting from performance measurements means. By learning from performance measurement data I think organizations would actually be better prepared to make innovative decisions then those who do not. However, if organizations become so focused on collecting data and meeting performance measurements, instead of learning what the measurements mean, then I would imagine those organization would stifle any possibility of innovation.
ReplyDelete