why do we theorise in isolation from each other?

Over the last few years, there's been growing encouragement for the charity and social enterprise world to uptake the 'theory of change' approach more.

For many who approach this model of thinking and presenting how you work for the first time, it appears daunting with a lot of jargon, technical diagrammes, and an apparent infinite number of ways to 'do it'...

But ultimately, it boils down to what (finally) got me through my maths exam - showing your workings out: laying out in a (hopefully simple and logical manner) why you're doing what you're doing so that anyone can understand it, and (hopefully) get behind it (and you) more.

As I've alluded to above, there are lots of examples and models out there - but as sometime who delivers training and learning around this, as starting points I usually recommend 2 templates to start:

1) The 'DIY' toolkit approach, developed by NESTA, and profiled by Innovation for Change:

 2) and this framework developed and agreed with The Treasury and DCLG as part of a national programme:

And the reason I suggest using these, rather than come up with something from scratch, is:

(a) it's easier to get started by using an existing template, and 

(b) the provenance of these frameworks is pretty 'sound', and as such, it means that whomever you share your Theory with subsequently will find it easier to take it more seriously.

But it strikes me that there's a huge problem with all of the guidance, training, consultancy, and such like, that all of the websites, sector bodies, and expert consultancies seem to have missed - and in doing so, means that the Theories created will always be stunted and never really have the transformative impact they're seeking to realise.

And the thing that seems to be missing is recognising that whichever charity, social enterprise, or other creating their Theory, isn't operating or exists in a bubble - they're co-located, work closely with other groups and services, and the people they support will be being impacted and engaged with by other organisations in parallel to themselves... and this is also something which the principles of reporting social impact and value already recognise: do not over claim - the people we support will also be being supported by other services, groups, and activities.

So if recognising that our creation of impact and benefit to people in need is co- and inter- dependant upon others, why aren't we encouraged to develop our Theories with them (or at the very least, do a 'sanity check' of them, by sharing them with our key audiences and partners)..?

why mission statements are a waste of time

Any time you get involved with reviewing or creating a new organisation, someone inevitably asks (and probably rightly so), “but what’s our mission statement..?” – without such a focus, it’s very difficult to be able to get everyone working together, motivated and generally able to be better at what it is that’s being done.

But trying to define that elusive vision which provides the magic answer to unifying everyone, resolving disagreements over purpose, and enable you to easily tell the world what it is you’re about is rarely easy going.

You’ll find that you can easily spend hours (and even days) in consultations involving words, values, images, and so on, just to get to a collective agreement about the general focus of it. And then just as much time again trying to get the exact right words, in the right order (and with the right punctuation!)...

And all for what? Some inspirational statement that most people don’t even acknowledge the existence of, because their view of you is shaped by their experiences of interacting with you – how and what you do with them (as well as for them), and what they hear about you from other people.

What’s prompted me to embark on this seeming rant against the sacrosanct mission statement is that I’ve been invited to join a consortia, and we’ve just spent ½ day trying to agree between the 9 of us what our shared mission should be about... (and still only got it down to 3 options!). Surely we’d be better spending our energies agreeing the broad shape of what it is that’s united us in the first place, and then getting on and doing something to make the world a better place?

But what about me and my consultancy practice? I’ve often referred to having certain values that influence my approaches, so surely I have a mission statement too? Something aspirational, but also a bit vague and ‘woolly’ to make it easier for me to do the wide range of things that I do – so until the next time I review it, here it is:

“to not get caught...” 

doing a Del Boy...

in the run up to christmas last year, I found myself running a market stall at a craft market, peddling felted soaps, lace, scarves and such like (long story for another time).

Needless to say, it was very different to how I usually work - not only because it was retail, rather than 'business to business', but also because it meant me standing outside all day in -3C.
BUT it was actually a really good experince: trading in an unfamiliar context with a different group of customers meant a lot of thinking and learning on my feet; it also forced me to quickly form loose alliances with other neighbouring traders. All of which not only meant I took sales that were very respectable, but also had the opportunity to reflect on how I do business from a completely diiferent perspective.

So - I'd encourage you all to try the same from time to time. Spend a day doing business in a way that's completely alien to your usual - get out your suitcase fully of (dodgy?) gear, pull on the fake fur trim coat and fire up the 3-wheeler...