When a Strategic Plan Is the Wrong Prescription
Ruth Buffalo, MBA, MPH, MMgt, an enrolled tribal member of the Three Affiliated Tribes, works with nonprofits, tribal organizations, and public agencies on leadership and strategy. In a recent interview, she shared her perspective on the gaps between common consulting advice and the realities of organizational life.
The Limits of Standard Advice
Buffalo cautions that the usual prescription—bring in a consultant to write a strategic plan—can backfire when the real problem is deeper. She said "The standard advice often fails when an organization is facing deep-seated cultural or governance issues rather than just a strategic direction gap. Bringing in a consultant to write a plan without first addressing the underlying dysfunction or leadership conflict is akin to putting a bandage on a structural failure; it ignores the root cause and can actually exacerbate existing tensions."
For leaders, the takeaway is clear: before commissioning a plan, assess whether the organization needs to resolve governance or cultural conflicts first. A plan built on unresolved tension is unlikely to hold.
What Online Guidance Misses
Much of the advice available online focuses on technical steps and templates. Buffalo points out that this guidance consistently overlooks the relational work that determines success. She said "The guidance found online consistently overlooks the reality of navigating complex community and board relationships. It rarely accounts for the 'soft' work required to manage political dynamics, the necessity of building genuine trust with stakeholders who may be skeptical of consultants, and the challenge of balancing executive authority with Board expectations."
That means leaders should budget time and resources for trust-building, stakeholder engagement, and managing board dynamics—not just for producing a document. As Buffalo suggests, the "soft" work is often the hardest and most consequential part of an engagement.
What Boards Decide Too Quickly
When selecting a consultant, boards and directors often prioritize reputation or a standard procurement process over fit. Buffalo said "Boards and directors often move too quickly toward selection based on reputation or a standard procurement process without fully vetting whether the consultant's approach is actually aligned with the specific operational and cultural needs of the organization. They frequently prioritize the speed of the engagement over ensuring the consultant possesses the specific cultural competency and nuanced experience necessary to solve the organization's unique challenges."
The practical implication is to slow down the selection process. Boards should ask detailed questions about approach, cultural competency, and relevant experience—and be willing to trade speed for alignment.
Practical Takeaways
- Diagnose before prescribing. If governance or cultural issues are present, address them before launching a strategic planning process.
- Plan for the relational work. Allocate time and resources for trust-building and stakeholder engagement.
- Vet for fit, not just reputation. Ensure the consultant's approach and cultural competency match the organization's specific needs.
- Resist the urge to rush. A slower, more deliberate selection process can prevent costly mismatches.
Buffalo's insights underscore that effective consulting is less about producing a plan and more about understanding the organization's underlying dynamics. For leaders seeking outside help, the first step is often an honest look inward.
To learn more about Ruth Buffalo's work, visit ruthbuffalo.com.
For additional context on nonprofit governance and leadership, see resources from BoardSource and the National Council of Nonprofits.