April 2013 – Page 6 – Management Library

April 4, 2013March 25, 2022

If You Evaluate It – They Will Come…

how to write an effective evaluation section of your grant proposal

Since Andrew Grant wrote in his post, Impress Funders with Your Grant Proposal: Target Your Outcomes, “funders have become consumed with the notion of outcomes assessment.” (The link to Andrew’s piece is at the bottom of this post.)

I agree, and have found the evaluation section of proposals to be the most critical in winning grants. Potential funders want, and need to know how you will determine if your programs are successful and, by extension, if their money will be well spent.

Here’s how to write an effective evaluation section of your grant proposal:

1. Work with your program staff! As I wrote in last month’s post, “Using Credible Research To Write Compelling Needs Statements,” your program staff members are the experts on what your organization does, and they’ll have the most relevant and up-to-date research related to their programs. Work with them to define the goals, outcomes and metrics for their programs, and then include this information in grant proposals.

2. Include quantitative metrics. Quantitative metrics are measurable, and grant reviewers are increasingly asking for more meaningful data. For example, one foundation requests that, “for an academic measurable outcome we strongly suggest using a standardized test as the instrument to gauge improvement.” Remember that your programs are intended to change behaviors and/or attitudes. Measuring how many people showed up is no longer good enough. However, measuring knowledge before and after a particular program activity (pre- and post-testing) would be a viable quantitative metric.

3. Define whether you will conduct an internal evaluation or hire an outside evaluator. Who will collect the program outcome data, and what records will you keep? Will this be the responsibility of your program staff, your administrative staff, your grant manager, or an outside evaluator? Who will interpret the data and report on the findings? Include this information in the evaluation section of your grant proposals.

4. Use your evaluation findings to modify program design. Your evaluation findings should be used to assess your program’s effectiveness, AND to inform your future work. If your evaluation findings show that a particular program outcome was not achieved, discuss this with your program staff. Why do they think the outcome was not achieved, and what would they change going forward? Include this information in the evaluation section of your grant proposals. This will demonstrate that your organization takes program evaluation seriously. You are evaluating your programs to improve their effectiveness, not just because your grant applications require that you do so.

Impress Funders With Your Grant Proposal: Target Your Outcomes
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lynn deLearie Consulting, LLC, helps nonprofit organizations develop, enhance and expand grants programs, and helps them secure funding from foundations and corporations. Contact Lynn deLearie.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Look for Lynn’s ebook on Grants & Grantsmanship. It’s part of The Fundraising Series of ebooks
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.

April 3, 2013June 9, 2022

Right Vs Left Brain Communicators

Human brain showing both the right and left side of the brain

Are Technical Communicators/Writers more right-brain or left-brain thinkers? In a previous post about a technical writers soft skills (https://staging.management.org/blogs/communications/2013/03/05/soft-skills-of-a-technical-writer/) , I defined the soft skills of technical writers as being made up of communication, emotion, concentration, and common sense. …...’ It is being able to see and interpret the whole picture and to translate it into useable and understandable terms for others ....Technical Writers use their soft skills to…communicate,…listen,…understand,….lead….’

While writing the above, this question came about: ‘Are Technical Writers more right-brain than left-brain oriented? If we define the difference between right- and left-brain thinkers as…..the right side of the brain controlling the art, music, humanities side of your thinking, and the left side featuring the logical, analytical side., you can associate the right side of the brain to artists, musicians, teachers, designers, or philosophers, etc. while the left-side dominant thinkers tend to be analysts, statisticians, scientists, or problem solvers, etc.

The right side of the brain helps us with:

Understanding the audience
Understanding what is needed by clients
Communicating and collaborating
Listening to others
Designing good content
Being able to work well with others
Developing creative ideas
Training abilities
Writing well
Handling stress
Leading

The left side of the brain helps us with:

Being technologically oriented
Seeing and understanding the technical and scientific aspects of a product and functionality
Building a logical workflow of a system
Analyzing data
Supporting quality and accuracy via trouble shooting problems
Usability and regression testing
Understanding System enhancements
Strategizing the detailed organization of a document
Making decisions
Recognizing and sticking to timelines
Setting priorities

I think Technical Communicators/Writers are both right- and left-brain oriented and combined they bring out their best attributes.

Other questions arose, i.e., where does user experience of an application fall for the Technical Communicator/Writer when they function as a user interface designer? Is this a more right- or left-brain oriented skill? Is the ease of use of an application or what is presented related to one side of the brain? Maybe it’s the right side as it involves the user interface design. But then, argumentatively, the functionality and logistics is left-brain oriented. I think the same goes for proof reading or copy editing. Both sides are needed for checking content.

When you look at the whole picture, that is, the definition of a Technical Communicator/Writer, it doesn’t seem like one side is more dominant. We see that having both sides of the brain are needed to relate information. If you go too far to the left, the writing can be too intense, boring, or mind-numbing and if you go too far to the right, the content might not be serious or be too varied or diverse and be confusing because it doesn’t hit the nail on the head.

To be a good Technical Communicator /Writer, we need the right and left side of the brain to accompaniment each other; to balance each other out.

If you think otherwise, please leave a comment.

April 2, 2013July 26, 2022

Some Pitfalls for Action Learning Facilitators — and How to Avoid Them

A-group-of-female-colleagues-colloborating-in-a-businee

I have facilitated Action Learning groups for several decades and taught others to facilitate, as well. While there are numerous pitfalls that a facilitator can fall into, here are some of the most common, especially among new facilitators. Each of the pitfalls can detract from the participation and responsibilities of members in the Action Learning group. Each usually occurs because facilitators mistake their own needs for those of the members. Near the end of this post, I share my ideas for avoiding or recovering from these pitfalls. I encourage you to share your ideas, as well.

Refuge In the Role of Expert

There is tremendous inertia among new facilitators to fall back on the “expert” role, which shores up the facilitator’s confidence, but too often cultivates passivity among group members. Usually, a facilitator is perceived as an expert during the training about the Action Learning process. Therefore, it is natural for members to continue to perceive the facilitator as sharing wisdom from a training role — a role that can inadvertently cripple the success of the facilitation when it should be bringing out the wisdom of the group.

Hijacking the Action Learning

Similarly, it is very seductive to begin padding the Action Learning process with seemingly small and incremental “assignments” which, while shoring up the confidence of the facilitator, also insidiously mutate the Action Learning process into a traditional instructor-led training program. For example, consider an Action Learning program designed to resolve a complex issue in an organization. The new facilitator might have read various articles about a certain new organizational change model that seems very interesting to the facilitator, but that the client and sponsor insist are not compatible to the nature and needs of the organization. Still, the facilitator assigns the model to the group members.

Rescuer Syndrome

This occurs when a facilitator succumbs to the urge to “rescue” a group member who is struggling with a particularly difficult issue. This can occur especially when the struggling member is considering thoughtful questions posed from other group members in a meeting. On those occasions, the facilitator might mistake the struggle to be the result of the failings of his facilitation, the Action Learning process or of other group members. So the facilitator might rescue a member by asking very leading questions or even answering the questions for the member.

Loses Love for Learning

Sometimes a new facilitator also takes refuge in using the same, very comfortable techniques and tools. For example, the facilitator finds a particular set of coaching questions to be especially comfortable and so he consistently asserts that set for the group members. Perhaps Hughes, in Pedler’s “Action Learning in Practice” (p. 109), puts it best, “If and when I begin to … become expert, thinking `I’m getting competent/good/slick at this Action Learning set advising business’ then I think it will be time for me to stop, for certainly my own learning will have stopped then.”

Abandoning Group Wisdom

It is natural for facilitators to have bad days — days when it is very difficult to feel centered when facilitating. On those occasions, it is also natural to sense issues in the group where those issues might not even exist. For example, because the facilitator is feeling especially irritable or impatient, he might conclude that members need to “go deeper” in their questioning. He might interrupt them to insist that they do a better job of questioning because “there’s a deeper level that you’re not reaching yet.”

Some Suggested Practices to Address These Pitfalls

The following practices can help facilitators and group members to avoid, or address, all of these piftalls.

When training group members about Action Learning, empower members to regularly share questions and opinions about the quality of the a) Action Learning program, b) facilitation, c) resources/articles, d) meetings and e) individuals’ results.
Build in time in each meeting for members to share their opinions and reflections about the above aspects.
Build in intentional and systematic program evaluations near the middle and end of the program, that ask about the quality of the above aspects.
When training about Action Learning, also clarify the differences between the roles of the trainer and facilitator, and when each role is best used.
When training group members, show them examples of when the facilitator’s intervention is helpful and when it might not be so helpful.
Review ground rules at the beginning of each meeting, including a ground rule that all opinions are honored.
Have a very brief portion of the agenda dedicated to sharing interesting materials that are not directly related to the program, when needed, but be sure to clarify the purpose of the materials and to review them outside of the meeting.
If the facilitator senses that the presenter is struggling or is not getting value during a meeting, then ask the presenter, “Are we being helpful to you?” and then let the presenter reflect on the quality of the help that he is getting. The presenter might be finding tremendous value, even though the facilitator does not think so.
If the facilitator is asked by the group to train about a certain practice that typically is not part of the Action Learning program or process, then he should make time outside of the meeting to do that training. On those occasions, the facilitator might say, “I’m putting on my ‘trainer hat’ for now, and will put on my ‘facilitator hat’ when we’re back in our Action Learning session again.”
When the facilitator feels excited about offering a new article or other resource, he should always collaborate with the client, sponsor and group members to be sure that the resource is focused on the aims of the program.
Join a peer group of facilitators to share feedback and learning from these experiences and pitfalls.

Summary

Paulo Freire, in “Pedagogy in Process: The Letters to Guinea-Bissau” provides what might be the most accurate description of the most effective form of help provided by the facilitator role: “Authentic help means that all who are involved help each other mutually, growing together in the common effort to understand the reality which they seek to transform. Only through such praxis — in which those who help and those who are being helped help each other simultaneously — can the act of helping become free from the distortion in which the helper dominates the helped.”

? What do you think? Are there other pitfalls? Other ways to avoid them?

Thank you!

—

Here are more resources on Action Learning

—

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD is a principal consultant in Action Learning Source, an alliance that offers Action Learning workshops and services. For more information, see ActionLearningSource.com

April 2, 2013July 26, 2022

Rutgers Player Abuse Creates Crisis Management Mess

-basketball-coach-reviewing-tactics-with-players.

Shocking footage shows coach shoving, throwing balls at player’s heads

Rutgers University is facing a major crisis after video showing men’s basketball coach Mike Rice hurling basketballs at player’s heads, shoving, yanking collars, and screaming homophopic slurs was broadcast on ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” this afternoon.

Video of Rutgers practices from the past two years was acquired by ESPN, which broadcast just seconds of what producers say is dozens of hours of damning footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVoOtpDuZwA

No surprise to Rutgers

The thing that’s really going to make crisis management an uphill climb is that this comes as no surprise to the college. A thirty minute video containing similar clips was shown to athletic department officials last year, but Rice recived a $50,000 fine and a three-game suspension, essentially a slap on the wrist when it comes to college sports.

Of course, the first reaction from athletic director Tim Pernetti was to dig himself a deeper hole, defending the lack of serious punishment, as well as insufficient disclosure, for, as he called it, the “first offense.”

Well, if the ESPN footage is any indication, his first, second, third and fourth chances have been used up as well. If any person walked up to another in the middle of the street and threw a basketball at their head, kicked them, or even grabbed them by their collar and pulled, they would be charged with assault. Why you would ever try to defend taking those same actions against young adults who are under your care is beyond us, and we’re sure the Rutgers PR department is sweating bullets right now.

Send in the cleanup crew

Already, media outlets across the country are calling for Rice to be fired, and a closer look to be taken at the entire Rutgers sports system. This isn’t going to blow over, the only way to put out the fire is for Rutgers to take action.

Our advice? Clean house. Fire Rice, and fire Tim Pernetti, the director who allowed this abuse to go virtually unpunished and still continues to attempt to minimize its significance. That’s not enough, though. Rutgers will have to re-train its entire athletic staff, and do so publicly enough to assure parents that this is indeed a safe place to send their children to school.

Don’t sweep it under the rug

College programs, just like any other organization, need to learn this lesson – you don’t sweep nasty business under the rug. No matter how well you think it’s buried, no matter how long in the past it may have been, it’s going to come out, and when it does you will look all the more guilty for having hidden things in the first place.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

April 2, 2013March 28, 2023

Lessons from Michael Porter’s Monitor failure

It’s been widely reported that the company co-founded by Michael Porter, the famous Harvard Business School professor who wrote The Book on business strategy, was forced into bankruptcy protection.

We’ve written several blogs about Michael Porter’s insights. How could a business started by the guru of five-force analysis, possibly one of the most widely-adopted competitive strategy in the world, possibly fail? Continue reading “Lessons from Michael Porter’s Monitor failure”

April 2, 2013March 25, 2022

I Don’t Want To Hear The Truth !!

The words TRUTH AND FALSITY written on plain papers

This posting by: Tony Poderis

We know that a Planning Study (see: What is a Planning Study) is a tool a non-profit uses to determine whether it should go ahead with a Major (capital or endowment) Fundraising Effort.

Such a Study is essential for an organization in order to assess the likelihood of success before entering into a campaign. An organization that does not do so puts the campaign, the project for which the money is to be raised, and even the non-profit itself at risk.

Sad to say, however, when many such studies are conducted, and when the Study Reports are completed and presented to commissioning organizations, all too often their leaderships balk and resist implementing the Study Recommendations simply because the study may tell them what they don’t want to hear.

Those leaders find it so hard to believe, though they must, how their “family-and-friends” — the interviewees they’ve suggested, may actually be critical of the organization’s operation under their leadership.

For those leaders, let me say, “I understand. I do know where you’re coming from – and I empathize, but your rejections of fact can be seriously counterproductive.”

You suggested that those people be interviewed in the first place — you knew they cared and supported the organization, or had influence in the community you serve, and you wanted their input.

The Study Report, then, provided you with their thoughts and perspectives, and you must, therefore, give serious consideration to what they said.

And you must ... make sure that you take the time to go over every element of the Study Report. Don’t skip over any of the negative … that on first reading may seem minor. Be even tougher in your analysis than the person who wrote the Study Report and made the Recommendations.

When it comes to deciding whether or not to go ahead with the campaign, you must give credence to the thoughts/perspectives/recommendations you solicited.

It would be folly to take the time to conduct a Planning Study, spend the money on it, then risk alienating people important to the organization by ignoring their input.

An organization that ignores some or all of a study’s findings makes a mistake that can fatally damage the campaign, the project, and even the organization.

The study might recommend against proceeding with the effort until the nonprofit first repairs the (perceived) “faults” and/or installs new elements of its basic infrastructure – an updated strategic plan, a better defined mission, a strengthened board, or a myriad other things. Diligence is essential in carrying out such recommendations.

I am still awaiting the final payment for a Study from an organization that didn’t like what the 25 people they chose, and whom I interviewed, had to say.

In another instance, I had to fight tooth and nail to get an organization’s executive director and president to share the results of a study with their own board – as they had promised to do going into the process. The more negative a study’s results, the more important that they be heeded.

If the Study’s results tell you so, it is far better not to start a campaign, even if it means postponing or giving up on a project, than to begin a campaign that fails.

The decision whether or not to go ahead with a major effort is one that the organization makes in relative privacy. A failed campaign is a public event that reflects negatively on:

     • Campaign leadership
     • Campaign volunteers
     • The organization’s board
     • The organization’s staff
     • The organization’s image

A failed campaign makes it harder for future campaigns to succeed. People give to organizations they perceive to be competent. The best volunteer leadership for both fund-raising endeavors and governance is drawn to organizations that are perceived to be winners.

If a Study tells you what you don’t want to hear that was said by those having the influence and affluence that would affect your campaign and your organization, don’t blame them or the people who conducted the study and don’t try to hide the results.

Listen to and act upon what your organization’s family and friends tell you. Fix what must be fixed, explain what can’t be fixed, and at least acknowledge and explain what may be mistaken impressions and opinions.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you have a question or comment for Tony, he can be reached at Tony@raise-funds.com. There is also a lot of good fundraising information on his website: Raise-Funds.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have you seen The Fundraising Series of ebooks ??
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If you’re reading this on-line and you would like to comment/expand on the above, or would just like to offer your thoughts on the subject of this posting, we encourage you to “Leave a Reply” at the bottom of this page, click on the feedback link at the top of the page, or send an email to the author of this posting. If you’ve received this posting as an email, click on the email link (above) to communicate with the author.