Change Management for Nonprofits Facing Demands for Data:
Data is a lively topic in the private and public sectors. In May of last year, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) announced that for the first time in its 47-year history grants would be awarded to researchers to investigate the value and impact of the arts using “existing, high-quality data sets.” (NEA Newsroom, May 30, 2012). To date they have awarded $240,000 to 14 projects. Discussion and research are ongoing and resources are proliferating but as technology and methodology evolve so do expectations and standards. Data sets have been (and continue to be) developed and made available to nonprofit groups, as have tools that can be applied to analyze and visualize data to support decision-making and advocacy. However, a nationwide survey of nonprofits conducted in 2012 to investigate their relationships to data uncovered a dichotomy, “…either they were doing a lot with their metrics or not much at all.” (NTEN & Idealware, The State of Nonprofit Data, 2012, p.3). Many of the data sets, research reports, and tools that I have found to support data gathering and analysis would be available to any nonprofits in the survey, which led to my thesis that the adoption of successful data strategies has less to do with the availability of these types of external resources and more to do with internal culture and process. I have investigated strategies used for agile software development and design innovation, models for strategic planning and organizational change management, and principals from leadership theory, the biology of learning and emotional intelligence to propose a framework for thinking about data that can help nonprofit organizations successfully evolve in a data-driven era without undermining the heart or the complexity of their work in the arts and culture sector.
19. “ere is nothing worse than a sharp
image of a fuzzy concept.”
—Ansel Adams
quoted by Ann Markusen: “Fuzzy Indicators, Proxy Data,” Createquity.com (11‐09‐2012)
20. BE WARY of TIDY METRICS
for COMPLEX PROBLEMS
INDICATORS = cutting CUBES out of CLOUDS
21. REALITY = ENGAGING COMPLEXITY
AMBIGUITY is more INCLUSIVE
+ leads to NEW IDEAS
22. “As we proceed towards profit & progress
with data, let us encourage artists,
novelists, performers & poets to take
an active role in the conversation.”
—Jer orp
New York Times Data Artist in Residence
“Big data is not the new oil,” HBR blog (2012)
30. ACTIONS exist in a COMPLEX ECOSYSTEM
Adapted from the Monitor InsHtute (2013) with thanks to Kevin Hughes (2012)
*nothing happens without people
?= DATA*
32. Thinking In Systems: A Primer (2008)
WE GET WHAT WE ASK FOR
“Systems, like the three wishes in
a fairy tale have a terrible tendency
to produce exactly & only what
you ask them to produce.”
—Dana Meadows
42. Adapted from Change ConsulHng Associates, Kubler‐Ross, On Death and Dying, Conner, Managing at the Speed of Change and IMA, Inc.
TIMEPassive
Active
Immobilization
Denial
Response: avoid confrontation,
strengthen relationship, focus on
smaller/first steps
Anger
Bargaining
Response: legitimize — anger
comes from loss of control, don’t
take personally, listen
Response: don’t (will redefine the
change), “there can be no deal”
Exploration
Response: test new options, acknowledge
progress, build confidence
Acceptance
Response: reward and acknowledge progress,
identify lessons learned, prepare for new change
Depression
Response: provide support, note resources available,
encourage responsibility, reframe to test
EMOTIONALINTENSITY
HOPE
Negative Change Reaction
Q: must leaders manage individual
transition through the grief cycle?
CHANGE = LOSS
43. A: only if they are dying!
In longitudinal studies on
loss, nearly 50% of the
population report no
debilitating grief at all.
Another 20% recover on
their own with no lasting
debilitation.
Only 1/3 of the population
is debilitated by loss.
Research by George Bonanno 2002‐2012 cited by Andrew Zolli
CHANGE = LIFE