I admire those organisations in our community that deliver a broad and diverse range of programs into our communities. They are the glue that holds us together especially so in 2020. One of the larger community health providers near my house has more than 170 distinct service programs.
Yet when I bring up the touchy topic of individual program viability, they’ll almost certainly tell me “every program is important” or “ït’s why we exist” or “the need is there, we just have to make it work”. They are probably right. Their services have been funded for a reason, and that reason is valid.
The challenge as I see it, is not about the mission itself, it's how you operationalise a complex set of operating parameters to achieve it. The "how". NASA completed 135 ground-breaking Space Shuttle missions between 1981 and 2011. An amazing technological achievement.
As we've seen in Victoria recently, the world on Earth is complex and evolving. How can you better understand the issues at hand and the context in which we operate to keep us "on mission"?
Growth is good, isn't it?
Striving for revenue growth is obviously crucial. More money means more reach and more jobs. While double digit growth looks impressive, look out for the tiny cracks in the foundations of your business operations that will gradually widen if not kept in check.
There were 27,000 ceramic tiles on the Space Shuttle designed to withstand 1,650 degree temperatures. Each one was individually inspected before launch and after re-entry. Every time the Shuttle entered the atmosphere it lost several of these tiles, but was safe enough as long as several didn’t come off in one spot.
Look for the subtle flaws in your day-to-day operations that could become compliance headaches or excessive overheads later on. How familiar do they sound?
New employees are poorly trained and often expected to learn on the job by themselves
You can't find workers quickly enough to meet demand
You haven't accurately understood the cost of making products or delivering services
Your customer service isn't quite where it needs to be
A growth phase is an exciting and rewarding time for any business. The primary goal is to keep the top line well nourished with recurring revenue streams. The secondary goal is sustainability. It doesn't naturally follow. Organisations often underestimate the intense pressure placed on operations and the back office that accompanies rapid growth.
De-mystifying your mission
Let’s start with mission statements. If you look hard enough, you can creatively tie almost any strategic funding opportunity to an inspiring mission statement.
NASA's mission is to explore, use, and enable the development of space for human enterprise.
Here on Earth, here is one example: “We reach out to people with ____________ supporting them in achieving self-fulfillment and connection with the greater community”.
The key phrases here are:
My first question is: How would you know you have successfully achieved self-fulfillment and connection? Broad mission statements are well meaning, but they are notoriously difficult to operationalise in the day-to-day (i.e. especially measure).
My second question is: What isn't part of this mission? If the goal is self-fulfillment and connection, there are a thousand ways that could be tackled.
In the name of the cause
What I often see are management teams taking on as much as they can in the name of the “cause” and regrettably spreading themselves too thin. One of the main reasons the sustainability struggle is real - is trying to do too many things at the same time. It's important to have focus, discipline, and gather the data to tell you what is working and what isn't.
What is essential is a clear strategy to determine what is on or off mission.
Otherwise you are always battling “mission fit” (broad justification for chasing any kind of funding stream) versus business discipline. When "mission fit" wins, you end up with a portfolio of disproportionately low revenue programs and services with very specific operational nuances. A forever burgeoning back office somehow has to make it work both financially and operationally.
Embracing "mission fit" is, in other words, when the tail wags the dog.
You’ll likely see this if:
The management team’s capability and capacity are spread too thin leading to rash decision making
People waste time chasing every funding source possible even if remotely linked to mission
Too much is spent on back office functions to support tiny (micro) programs that will never be anything but tiny
Focus is lost. The organisation drifts away from what it does well so it does nothing well (operationally anyway)
No prizes for guessing the ultimate consequence: lost customers, alienated stakeholders, good employees get burned out and your reputation takes a hit.