One of my favorite clients forwarded me an article from the McKinsey Quarterly last week called "Managing the Strategy Journey." He said that this article flowed nicely into what they were doing (with our help) with the Balanced Scorecard framework. The premise of the article is that you need to have regular strategy dialog at the senior leadership level.

One of the interesting aspects of working with nonprofit and educational organizations is the very intellectual, consensual, and deliberate manner in which they do everything they do. This is a critical part of their cultural, which makes them successful in carrying out their day-to-day work and achieving their missions.

However, when it becomes necessary to change the way they do things, we consultants can view these characteristics--of needing to achieve absolute consensus and leaving no stone unturned before moving forward--as a bit of a drawback, causing inertia. This is often true especially when it comes to starting up a Balanced Scorecard at one of these organizations.

A key concept in the "Balanced" Scorecard is the idea of "balance." As originally envisioned by Drs. Kaplan and Norton, balance meant that financial indicators should be balanced by customer, internal process, and learning and growth measures. But over the years, the idea of balance has grown to mean a lot more in the world of the Balanced Scorecard.

Employee evaluations have always been a pet peeve of mine. I hate giving them, I hate getting them (part of the reason I started Ascendant was so that I would no longer have to get an annual review), and I find them to have little to no value. They're either used to document behavior that's well understood or to create a paper trail to eventually terminate someone. And everyone is above average. So what's the point?

Is it possible for your organization to achieve its strategy independently? Well, if you think you can go it alone I would like to challenge your thinking – particularly if you operate in the social sector. If you run a homeless shelter, you need other shelters to manage overflow situations. If you run an environmental organization your mission may benefit from cooperation from large corporations. If you run an arts organization you are likely linked with schools to engage young children in the arts. Interdependencies are equally obvious for federal, state and local government organizations. So, if this interdependence is so prevalent then why do most organizations consider their strategy a secret? Who knows, but it is time to change this. I would suggest that if your mission addresses a social challenge then you should establish a strategic partnership with others who can contribute to solutions and will benefit from impact.

Recently, I read an interesting article in the Harvard Business Review entitled, "Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams." The article was based on a study that examined 55 teams across 15 multinational companies, and provides valuable insight into the primary drivers of strong teamwork and high levels of collaboration. Both collaboration and teamwork are vital if your organization plans to run effectively and efficiently. So, with that in mind, I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight the eight key factors in building collaborative teams. As laid out in the article, the eight factors are:

Well, it is the last week of June, and that means for most organizations, they are looking at the end of the quarter or even the end of the fiscal year. If you are in a for-profit organization, that means you are pushing for sales, invoices, and collections. In nonprofits, fundraising is extremely busy as is the quest to spend budget (if you are a use it or lose it organization). So, what is so special about this week, and why is it so crazy?

Transparency is almost always considered an important characteristic of both good government as well as good performance management systems. Therefore, on the surface, the effort in New York State to have all teacher performance evaluations released to the public seems like a worthy reform of the state's public school system.

First, parents can see the performance evaluations of their children's teachers and prospective teachers. Second, teachers will improve their performance for one of two reasons: (1) the knowledge that anyone – their spouses, their neighbors, even their mothers – can see their performance evaluations or (2) parents will be allowed to "shop" for their children's teachers and poor performing ones will have no buyers.

Twenty years ago, in 1992, Harvard Business Review published "Balanced Scorecard -- the Measures That Drive Performance." Seemingly obvious now, the article argued that companies need to measure more than just financial and operational measures to succeed. By looking at a "balanced scorecard" of financial, customer, process, and people measures, organization could more accurately understand the drivers of performance.

Jamie Dimon's testimony this week about how JP Morgan Chase ended up losing over $2B due to bad decisions compounded by bad decisions got me thinking about risk, risk management, and incentives. And how, at the end of the day, it's the incentives that matter.