Twice in the past week I was asked to suggest the slides to include in a “pitch deck” – a handful of slides that are used to “pitch” an organization, its programmes or products. Pitch decks tend to be fairly standardized, have a high level of design work, and make selective use of text.

I recommend 10 slides @ 2 minutes to discuss = 20 minute presentation. Here are the slides that I would include for a presentation to a customer or donor. Please adapt as necessary.

Thanks to Guy Kawasaki’s Art of the Start for inspiring my thinking on this topic many years ago.

A social entrepreneur recently called me for some advice.

He had started a “social enterprise” with a for-profit legal form – a private company (“PTY”).

He had managed to secure the South African licence to sell a very promising product that serves the people at the “bottom-of-the-pyramid”.

He then approached some local foundations and corporate social investment (CSI) departments for funding. They said that he had to first create a non-profit company (NPC) and then use this vehicle to submit a funding proposal. In other words, these donors were suggesting that he create a hybrid social enterprise.

We had a short and productive discussion about where the best opportunities for his business were to be found. I explained that creating a hybrid model in this instance is most probably a bad idea.

Since I have this type of conversation quite regularly with social entrepreneurs, I decided to share and elaborate upon the six opportunities we discussed.

My colleagues and I recently responded to a request-for-proposals to develop a batch of complex strategies for a non-profit organization.

While developing a proposal, we wondered how this organization would able to implement all these strategies at once, or whether a more focused approach might be more appropriate. We ended up proposing an initial strategic assessment that would shape the resulting strategy work.

This short article revisits the purpose of strategy and reminds us how organizations tend to have limited resources (e.g. time, money, people, mental and emotional space) that can be deployed to bring about strategic change.

Many social entrepreneurs set up organizations in order to change the world. Those working on a “start-up” enterprise need to think differently about their organizations from those who run established or mature organizations.

While start-ups require entrepreneurs to exist in a state of high-energy hustle, established organizations require leaders who are good at building systems and achieving results through others.

Treating an established organization like a start-up can do more harm than good! It may constrain an organization’s evolution by locking it into a developmental stage. Conversely, handling a start-up (with its limited resources and unrefined approach) in the same way that you would treat an established organization would make it difficult to get it off the ground.

The wisdom is knowing when your organization has become established (it normally takes around 5 years) and then shifting your thinking and behaviour accordingly.

This article explores how social entrepreneurs and leaders should see and treat their organizations, depending on whether they are busy setting it up or whether it is already established.

The South African government is busy developing a strategy to help cultivate the social economy in the country.

I’ve been fortunate to contribute to the strategic process – I’ve been interviewed several times and shared some written insights with the project team.

At the time of writing this article (February 2019), the government has commissioned a Green Paper on the Social Economy – a draft set of policy proposals for discussion. Green Papers tend to be followed by White Papers or official policy documents.

Since this strategy has been on my mind recently, I took a moment to record my thoughts and share them online and with the policy team. I’m also curious about what form you think the Social Economy Strategy should take.

Poor governance significantly increases the risk that a non-profit organization or social enterprise will under-perform or close down.

Yet for some reason, many governing bodies struggle to perform their duties effectively. These mandated structures seem more interested in micro-managing staff and processes, when they should be helping to lead organizations into their strategic future.

Ultimately, when a governing body stops providing effective and foresightful oversight and starts doing managers’ jobs, then the executive management team is undermined. Blind spots start to appear in the organization’s strategy. This can be fatal.

This article will explore the differences between governance and management. It will unpack what tends to go wrong and how to fix it. It will also contain insights from a lawyer I work closely with.

Too many leaders have been consumed by their organizations. They’re too busy putting out fires to think about how they want it to run. They’re spending too much time in the “engine room” of their organization, rather than providing strategic direction from the captain’s chair.

I believe that we should learn to adequately appreciate and respect the important systems in our organizations. Then we can then begin to fine-tune them and get things running the way we’ve envisioned

There are signs of automation everywhere; fear of artificial intelligence taking jobs; and the “fourth industrial revolution” haunts the media. The good news is that if we learn to see and work with systems, then we’ll be able to benefit from these trends. We can use them to increase the sustainability and impact of our organizations.

This article will unpack my view of organizational systems and the benefits of working with them.

This 1-page Strategy Brief shows the areas we typically assess when asked to design a Revenue Strategy for a non-profit organization in South Africa.

The findings from this assessment create the foundation we need to design a suitable strategy. This framework is based upon a recent proposal I developed for a client.

Note that we “revenue” as the money that an organization earns through the sale of goods and services (i.e. trading activities). A subset of income.

This 1-page Strategy Brief shows the areas we typically assess when asked to design an Income-Generation Strategy for a non-profit organization in South Africa.

We try to establish what is going on, working or not working, and what should change or be improved. The answers create the foundation we need to design a suitable strategy. This framework is based upon a recent proposal I developed for a client.

Note that we define “income” as the money coming into an organization, which has been earned or given. Income includes donations, grants, dividends, fees for the sale of goods and services etc. Income includes the donation of non-monetary things (e.g. time, goods and services). Income includes revenue.

South African non-profits are struggling to generate the income they need to fulfill their purpose and sustain themselves. As such they are embarking on a mix of strategies to improve their circumstances.

However, I’ve noticed that many non-profit organizations in South Africa are confused by the differences between a “revenue strategy” or “social enterprise strategy”, an “income-generation strategy”, a “sustainability strategy”, and an “organizational strategy”. This has led to much confusion with specialists like me being asked to design one type of strategy when an organization wants and needs one of the others.

This article aims to clear up the confusion around which strategy to invest in. It will clearly explain the differences between these four strategies and indicate when each is required. It complements my social enterprise glossary which aims to improve strategic clarity through clarity of language.