I bet you are aware of people, who when you share a perspective with them, their initial response usually comes as a critique and often would appear negative. I tend to think such people are natural critics. I also tend to find such people make great quantitative thinkers and can bring out perspectives that normally would be left out.

I have concluded that I am not one of the natural critics -- perhaps one of the reasons why I am not too good with the quantitative aspects of things. I tend to view myself as a natural optimist, generally quite accommodative, good at seeing the big picture, tend to reach out to the positive in everyone and everything, appreciating their thoughts, opinions and points of view. Yet on the other hand, I do think am also quite opinionated and when it comes to the analysis of issues, I support my opinions, views and thoughts with great passion.

So even when I read a book, I tend to read it more from a point of agreeing with the writer or basically my first impulse is to seek the writer’s point of view and the arguments behind that point. I would probably be nodding in agreement if the book makes a good case and unless there are points that really stick out that I disagree with, I would probably finish the book ready to take the case made and use it as a resource.

As I take a few moments to reflect on my recent read by Leslie R. Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant in the book Forces for Good, for those that might get to read my reflections, bear in mind that the ‘critique eye’ might be missing in it all. That my reflections are more focused on appreciating a case well made, reflecting on how it can apply or cases where it has applied, and the possible challenges that are likely to be encountered in seeking to apply the points made.

Well, I guess that was a long way to get to my point. Maybe I could stop here and say ‘to be continued…’ to give you all a reason to come back. That is if at all I give any reason to come back.

Getting to the point; Forces for Good is a book based on a study or research done on what the writers refer to as ‘high impact non-profits’ – in this case, referring to organizations that in the course of their existence have managed to have high impact through the projects and programs they run. The study focused on surveys done with the CEO’s of twelve non-profit organizations and in the book, the writers analyze and highlight their impacts. The writers of the book argue that while most non-profits tend to believe they would find success based on factors such as a good or large budget, good management, great promotion and marketing of their programs, high impact is more achieved by what an organization spends doing outside of their four walls.

Leslie and Heather make the case that while the internal organization of non-profits is important, high impact is more achieved based on how well an organization can leverage outside of the four walls; about how they can build partnerships, networks and systems that work for them, how they collaborate with other sectors and organizations, how they can advocate for policy change that will influence the achievement of their programs even as they serve or provide service, about how they can move markets and other sectors to work for them, about how they learn to master the art of adaptation by being keen on what the trends are and how to keep up with the trends, also about how they are able to inspire others that are not necessary core members of the organization, but who are inspired to take on the role of evangelists and spread the word to massive scales and also about how their leadership is shared and spread within the organization.

No doubt, the book makes a good case and lots of lessons can be drawn. Going to my initial point made, as I read the book, I do think I found myself nodding along in agreement.

That said, I do honestly believe in the writers' argument that for non-profits to make significant impact and take on the crucial role that society has curved and handed to them, they must be willing to step out of the comfort zones of the four walls and take the bull by the horns.  In some cases, that might mean standing right at the firing line or biting the bullet?  I actually tend to think that the only way to make impact no matter the field (non-profit or otherwise) is by thinking and acting out of the box and being ready to go the extra mile, which often tends to be outside of the four walls.

As I read the six practices shared in the book and as I nodded my head along, I certainly had in mind if and how these practices would apply in the case of non-profits in a country like Kenya. 

While I will choose not to delve deeply into the analysis of if they would or how, my first response is that they definitely apply, they definitely are likely to level up the potential for greater impact. I do however think, the bigger challenge lies in how these practices can effectively be adopted. For instance, take the case of advocacy and pushing for policy change. I tend to think that the non-profit sector in the US has achieved significant milestone in advocating and influencing policy change at various levels. When I think of a country like Kenya, that remains a major challenge.  I think in some larger scale, non-profits are yet to envision how pushing for policy change can impact their delivery of service/programs.  Those that do are mostly human rights and advocacy organizations, who mostly voice the injustices of society but are yet to do a good job pushing and having changes in policy.  Not to be too hard on the sector, I do think the other problem lies in the dynamics of a government and political system that is in most cases difficult to work with.  If anything, for the most part as their name suggests, non-profits in Kenya (non-governmental organizations) perfected the act of de-linking themselves from government and vice versa.  I do think this is definitely a trend that must change and do so fast.  

The business (private) sector seems to have achieved some level of success as opposed to the non-profit sector. Of course there are many reasons for this such as the political motivation of policy makers wanting business to support their aspirations and on the other hand, businesses seeking favorable policies that work for them.  In the past and even now, government and private sectors have been favorable to each other to some level, whether good or bad.

That said, no doubt, even in Kenya, the potential shift towards greater collaboration and integrating partnerships among sectors is the way to go. It is a trend that is slowly gaining headway. Perhaps non-profits in Kenya can sure learn a thing or two from the business on pushing for policy change, better still, non-profits can strategically partner with the private sector at various levels that would significantly scale up impact.  But that’s just one analysis.

Certainly a lot more can be drawn and explored from the case made in Forces for Good, but in a conclusion of my thoughts for now; being strategic about partnerships and networks across sectors, adding advocacy, adapting to trends and making markets work combined with shared leadership are all important and great practices.  However, I think one thing that may not have been highlighted as a practice is the having the COMMITMENT to see those partnerships through because along the way, they need nurturing and constant lubrication on the friction points to keep them running.