The Five Conditions Your Strategy Needs to Survive

Nonprofits spend a lot of time creating strategies. What would happen if they spent far less time asking a deceptively simple question: What has to be true for this strategy to actually work?

We tend to assume a strong strategy should be enough. Get the right people in the room, study the data, set the priorities, write the goals, then approve the plan. Then implementation begins.

Suddenly, the strategy has to compete with everything else the organization does, including staff having existing responsibilities and managers having competing priorities. We discover that decisions take longer than expected, and then new information changes the situation. Sometimes, someone leaves, funding shifts, or a new opportunity appears. Things don’t go according to plan. We assume that the strategy has failed. What if the conditions for implementing it were never there in the first place?

Research on implementation makes this distinction important. Durlak and DuPre's review of more than 500 quantitative studies found strong evidence that the quality of implementation affects the outcomes organizations achieve. They also identified more than 20 factors that can influence implementation, including organizational functioning, leadership, provider characteristics, and the support available to those doing the work. The five conditions introduced in this article are loosely connected and categorized to the factors highlighted in the research findings.

Implementation Is More Than "Making the Plan Happen"

This is one reason I've been interested in implementation science. The field takes a question that nonprofit leaders often treat as an afterthought right at the center:

What does it take for a good idea to become consistent practice?

Dean Fixsen and his colleagues describe implementation as a set of interacting supports that includes staff development, organizational supports, leadership, data systems, and improvement processes. The National Implementation Research Network makes the point even more clearly: adopting an idea isn't enough. Organizations need the infrastructure to put it into practice.

When a strategy produces weak results, we shouldn't immediately conclude that the strategy was bad. We should ask what happened between the strategy and the result, such as what I covered in The Missing Middle article I recently wrote.

For this article, I've distilled that middle into five conditions nonprofit leaders can use to assess whether a strategy has a fair chance of becoming reality. They are Clarity, Capacity, Ownership, Learning, and Reinforcement.

One clarification matters: these five conditions aren't a five-part framework lifted directly from a single implementation science model. They're a synthesis of recurring ideas across implementation research, translated into language I think nonprofit leaders can actually use.

1. Clarity: Does Everyone Know What Success Looks Like?

Clarity might seem really obvious, but it isn’t. A strategy can't guide action if people interpret it differently. Leadership may think everyone understands the strategy because the board approved it, staff attended the retreat, and the final document was distributed. None of that tells you whether people actually understand what they're supposed to accomplish.

Clarity means people can answer some basic questions:

· What are we trying to accomplish?

· What will be different if we succeed?

· What matters most?

· What does this mean for my work?

· What decisions should this strategy help us make?

This connects directly to one of the themes I've written about before in another Substack article: if you can't explain what success looks like in 30 seconds, you don’t have a strategy. A strategy doesn't need to be simple because the work is simple. It needs to be clear because the work isn't.

The National Implementation Research Network emphasizes the importance of defining practices clearly enough for people to use them in real settings. Its concept of a "usable innovation" focuses on making expectations specific enough to guide practice instead of leaving people to interpret broad intentions for themselves.

Clarity gives people something specific to act on. Without it, everyone can be working hard and still be working toward different things.

2. Capacity: Do We Actually Have Room to Do This?

This may be the condition organizations skip most often. They create a new priority without removing an old one, or they launch a new initiative without adding capacity. Then they ask already overloaded staff to "lean in" a little harder, as though enthusiasm somehow creates additional hours in the workweek.

Capacity isn't just about having enough people. It includes time, money, skills, technology, management support, infrastructure, and organizational bandwidth. Bryan Weiner's research on organizational readiness for change makes a similar point. Readiness depends in part on how people assess the demands of a change, the resources available to them, and the conditions surrounding implementation. In other words, an organization's willingness to change isn't separate from its ability to do the work.

A strategy may be completely reasonable and still be impossible for an organization to implement at the moment. So before adding another strategic priority, ask the more uncomfortable question: What will we stop doing to make room for this? If the answer is "nothing," you haven't created capacity. You've created another item on the list.

Alternatively, the question, what organizational infrastructure do we have to ensure this strategy has a fair chance of succeeding?, could also be asked. A strategy may be reasonable on paper and still struggle because the organization hasn't built the infrastructure to support it. You can't build a new capability on top of an infrastructure that can barely support the old one.

3. Ownership: Who Is Responsible for Making It Happen?

"Everyone is responsible" sounds collaborative, but it can also mean nobody is. Strategies often contain phrases such as "the organization will," "we will strengthen," or "we will increase." Fine. But who actually makes the decisions? Who coordinates the work? Who notices when progress stalls? Who has the authority to resolve problems? Who is accountable when the work doesn't happen? Ownership is about making responsibility visible rather than finding someone to blame.

The National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) places the question, who does the work of implementation? directly into its implementation framework. Its model emphasizes implementation teams with the responsibility and capacity to support practitioners, address organizational barriers, and keep implementation moving. The person responsible doesn't have to do all the work, but someone needs enough authority and clarity to keep the work moving. If everyone owns the strategy, check whether anyone actually does.

4. Learning: Are We Paying Attention to What Happens?

Here's where implementation differs from simply following instructions. A strategy is a set of informed choices about what an organization believes will produce a desired result.

Once implementation begins, those choices meet reality. Some of the unintended consequences could include: maybe the assumption was wrong, maybe the timeline was unrealistic, maybe clients respond differently than expected, maybe staff discover an obstacle leadership didn't anticipate, or maybe something works much better than expected.

NIRN's implementation framework explicitly incorporates improvement cycles, including Plan-Do-Study-Act processes and usability testing. This process treats implementation as a cycle of testing and learning rather than a one-time rollout. Organizations plan a change, do it on a small scale, study what happened by examining data and experience, and then act on what they learned by adapting the approach before testing it again. The point is to learn quickly and make adjustments while the cost of being wrong is still relatively small.

Usability testing asks a practical question before an organization commits to full implementation: Can the people who are supposed to use this actually use it as intended? NIRN's approach involves putting a practice, tool, process, or intervention in the hands of its intended users, observing where they encounter problems, gathering their feedback, and making changes based on what is learned. The goal isn't to determine whether people like the idea. It's to determine whether the idea is clear, feasible, and workable in the real conditions where it will be used.

This is also why implementation and evaluation shouldn't live in separate organizational worlds. Durlak and DuPre argue that collecting implementation information is essential to understanding program outcomes because you can't interpret results well without knowing what actually happened during implementation. It treats the strategy as something worth improving. A plan that no one learns from eventually becomes obsolete.

5. Reinforcement: What Keeps the Work Alive?

This may be the least glamorous condition. It may also be the one that separates a new initiative from something that eventually disappears.

Organizations announce priorities all the time. There is a customary ritual. They hold kickoff meetings, send emails, create committees, and put the initiative on the website. Then everyone gets busy again.

Reinforcement is what happens after the announcement. The improved ritual would look like leaders bringing priorities into regular meetings and managers using them when setting expectations. Then progress gets reviewed, and people receive feedback. Resources continue to support the work. Leaders notice when attention starts drifting and bring the focus back.

Research on implementation climate supports this idea. Weiner and colleagues describe an implementation climate in which people perceive that a new practice is expected, supported, and rewarded. Those signals matter because implementation is more likely to become consistent when the organization reinforces the behavior rather than simply announcing it.

NIRN's research makes a related point. Implementation unfolds over time and requires continuing organizational and leadership support. It isn't something you complete at the kickoff meeting and check off the list.

Implementation requires repeated attention. If the strategy matters, it should show up in the organization's routines. Otherwise, you're relying on memory and goodwill to sustain something that requires systems.

The Five Conditions Work Together

These conditions aren't five independent boxes to check. They reinforce one another. Clarity without capacity produces frustration. Capacity without ownership produces drift. Ownership without learning can produce stubbornness. Learning without reinforcement produces interesting conversations that don't change much. And reinforcement without clarity can mean an organization gets very good at doing the wrong thing consistently.

Implementation research supports this interconnected view. NIRN's implementation drivers are designed to work together, with competency, organizational, and leadership supports interacting rather than operating as isolated pieces. A weakness in one area can affect how well the others function.

The goal isn't to achieve perfection in all five areas before beginning any strategic work. That's not realistic. The point is to identify which conditions are weak enough to undermine implementation and address them deliberately. That's a very different approach from writing a strategy, announcing it, and hoping the organization catches up.

A Better Way to Talk About Implementation

This framework changes the question leaders ask when implementation starts to stall. Instead of asking: "Why aren't people implementing the strategy?" Ask: "Which condition isn't strong enough yet?" Follow-up questions could be: Are people unclear about what success means? Do they lack the capacity to do the work? Does ownership remain fuzzy? Are we learning from what implementation is telling us? Have leaders created enough reinforcement to keep the work alive? Those questions lead somewhere useful. They also shift the conversation away from blaming staff for failing to execute a strategy that may never have had the conditions it needed.

That's one of the most useful lessons from implementation science. Organizational readiness research suggests that implementation depends not only on whether people value a change, but also on whether they believe the organization has the collective ability and resources to carry it out. This is where nonprofit strategy needs to spend more time. That is the work in the middle, which is the space between the plan and the outcomes.

Impact

Supporting nonprofits to achieve their goals effectively.

Contact

info@vision-driven.com

+1-314-249-6848

© 2025. All rights reserved.

Substack - https://esherylaccount.substack.com/

Fill out the form below and I will be right with you.