When you sit down with your supervisor for your annual review or evaluation, it can go one of two ways.

When your supervisor spends more time on areas that “need improvement”, you may walk out of her office feeling defeated.

And how do you feel when you receive a glowing review? Pretty happy. Makes you feel like you’re excelling.

If you care about what you do, you welcome praise as well as recommendations for how to improve. Too much positive and you don’t feel the need to grow. If you’ve ever asked about things that you can improve of, and you don’t receive much of a response because everything is going well, how do you feel?

I’ve had my fair share of working with executive directors and program directors who only wanted me to focus on positive outcomes. And it makes me suspicious.

Of course, you want the people invested in what you’re doing to be happy. These people—the stakeholders—can range from anyone that is impacted directly on indirectly by the programs, services, or initiatives you’ve created for them.

Stakeholders want to see what’s going well. What’s going well can mean more media, more opportunities and more funding. “Negative” findings (and I use quotation marks because negative is subjective) can also lead to more media, and a lot of nonprofits fear this. Negative findings can give the impression that things are worse off than they really are.

But too much of the positive can give the impression that nothing needs to change. Let’s face it: Some nonprofits are out here designing surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus group questions that are so biased that one can’t expect anything but positive results. And that’s not valuable either.

How can positive findings give your staff the credit they deserve, and how can you address “negative” findings in a way that allows for your stakeholders to see opportunities?

(more…)

I talked with two potential clients this week, and both ended up being great conversations in how they plan to dive deeper into what makes their programming valuable to their audiences. There were lots of aha moments—on their end as well as mine—in how they conceptualize a potential evaluation project or training for their staff, the various evaluation theories thy can draw inspiration from, and how prepared their staff is to embark on a small or large-scale evaluation project.

A few of those aha moments centered on my process for conducting an evaluation, and in how I assist clients in incorporating evaluative thinking in their work. Oftentimes, discussions on evaluation don’t come into the very end of a project, so I encourage clients at the onset of a program to think more about what value their programming is expected to have on their audience.

While I typically have potential clients complete my client questionnaire prior to speaking with me, most of the time I’ll meet a potential client in person via a networking opportunity before setting up a time to discuss further.

During these recent calls, I found that we spent most of the time discussing how I go about conducting an evaluation or setting up a staff training on aspects of evaluation and how they can compliment their project. In those conversations, I touched on three key factors  an organization needs to consider, thus impacting how to measure the value of their program:

Clarity

A potential client questionnaire allows for a client to conceptualize a potential evaluation project, and an in-person meeting or a phone call allows for deeper understanding and relationship building. Regardless of which precedes the other, clarity on what you want to do is important. One of the benefits of being an independent evaluator is that I’m able to provide objective feedback on a client’s project and outline the factors that may impact the process of the evaluation project. Another role for developing clarity is in deciding if you really need an external evaluator to take a lead on this project or if there’s another way to add more value to this process. Which leads into my second key factor. (more…)