1. Reluctance: This is where non-profits must be challenged. Reluctance to take measurement seriously is often a warning sign that you are losing your way. Too many use “soft” social goals as a smokescreen for avoiding a hard look at our effectiveness. Our clients and customers generally don’t have that luxury.
2. Ambiguity: Well, yes and no… I believe that most important outcomes can be measured. A disciplined look generally reveals measurable indicators of success (don’t confuse measurable with count-able as qualitative measurement can be every bit as rigorous as quantitative methods).
3. Tools: I think this is key. We have sets of academic tools that are far too arcane and complex for normal organizations to use effectively (here are the keys to the helicopter… have fun!). We have sets of management indicators that often don’t get to the heart of our business. I have been interested for some time in developing tools that combine usability and simplicity with the right amount of rigour and precision. Tough but essential.
4. Objectivity: As opposed to all those cold, objective machines in the for-profit world? I’m not sure that non-profit managers are that much more passionate than good for-profit managers (or even bad ones, starry-eyed over the next perfect product). The for-profit guys know that if they don’t temper their enthusiasm with cold doses of reality from time to time, there won’t be any money in the bank. We owe it to our clients and customers to do the same.
5. Hope: I think this is a sub-set of 4 and not unique to non-profits. Many for-profit managers can see hope in the most dismal of P/L statements… to the chagrin of their shareholders.
6. Narrative: No measurement system is any good if it doesn’t tell a story. Stories are often very helpful ways of understanding outcomes in a deeper way. Good assessments use both narrative and numbers to tell a story that is both compelling and credible. I remember once working with an organization in Honduras to help them with the complexities of analyzing nutrition survey data for a CIDA report (post Hurricane Mitch). There was a lot of emphasis on the survey data and we spent a lot of time and effort getting it right. At the end, we threw in some text boxes with individuals’ stories. At a meeting later with the CIDA officer, she did not mention the survey results (they met the standard and were checked off the bureaucratic checklist) but spent the whole meeting animatedly discussing the stories in the text box, which offered so much more colour and insight.

Not sure exactly how relevant this is to the discussion, but I was just reflecting on the sacking of Avram Grant – interim manager for Chelsea. Chelsea lost to Spurs in the Carling Cup Final, came second in the Premiership (decided on the last day) and lost the Champions League Final to Man U on penalties (John Terry slipping on wet grass as he teed up what would have been the winning pen). All in all, a great season for a team that lost its manager close to the start of the season – two finals and a second-place finish in the most competitive league in the world. But the Chelsea manager is hired to win trophies, not to come second. It seems harsh to me that if Terry keeps his footing for that one penalty in the rain in Moscow, Grant likely keeps his job. That’s pretty hard-nosed results-based management. Abramovich – Chelsea’s owner – obviously feels this is necessary to reach the top. Is that good management practice? Doesn’t Grant deserve some credit? Is it just a mechanistic response – No Trophy/No Job? Pretty tough. I’m glad my board knows nothing about English football.