A topic that keeps floating around in my mind is how do we compare nonprofits to companies? As the public, we generally have a vested interest in their success. Nonprofits should be making the world a better place, right? At the same time, nonprofits have to deal with basic economics that everyone else has to – how to utilize scarce resources. With that in mind, there needs to be a way to measure nonprofits (and public organizations) to goals of some sort to give donors an idea of how to make the most informed decision with donating their money. You may think eradicating AIDS within the next five years is a great idea, but goals aren’t enough without a defined path to reach them, the capability to reach them, and some successes along the way. Goals are one way to measure this.
The discussion towards the end of class about determining goals was very interesting. As an MBA, in our core classes the SMART methodology on goal setting is hammered into us. Make goals Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Timely. The discussion last night was an interesting foil as to another approach. While the methodology is sound in having people reach for the stars, I think it has a potential to be harmful as well.
In my last organization, I worked for the Air Force Office of Small Business Programs. Each agency in the US Government has an Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) which helps agencies meet small business contacting goals. The Air Force was a poster child for an agency not meeting its goals. There were numerous reasons, an influx of major weapons system programs, the product and service mix of the Department compared to other agencies, lack of training, lack of accountability, perceived that SBs led to more work, cost and energy, and other issues. The SBA issues goals to each agency every year, and they were perceived as too high and the contracting workforce shut them out of their mind. The goals were impossible to hit, so no one tried. This is the danger of not having goals be attainable. In some instances, if you don’t hit your goal that’s probably OK. But perennially not hitting goals can have an adverse affect on morale.
– Tim C.
Strategic Management for Nonprofit & Public Organizations 
Tim,
Nice insights! I think one of the dangers of goal setting you point out is when they are “assigned” to an individual or organization without any buy in or participation. The only way I have seen the Almost Impossible Goal Setting work is when a person or a group A.) is inspired to achieve the goal, and B.) thinks there is a chance of making it. In the aftermath, it is also important to pay attention to progress versus whether you made it all the way. Thanks for your ideas.
Rob
Interesting blog topic – the Air Force may have more success with almost impossible goals if its leadership were to examine the culture of the organization. Asking questions about how involved people are in implementing the goals, how they are being incentivized, and how ‘noble’ failures are (how they are celebrated) could lead to positive changes. If leadership can champion that change, the almost impossible goals could be seen in a new, more effective light by all involved.