The People Your Strategic Plan Forgot

Nonprofit leaders spend a lot of time deciding what the organization should do. Boards set priorities. Executives develop strategies. Managers translate those strategies into programs, policies, procedures, and performance expectations. Then the strategy meets the person answering the phone.

It could be the case manager meeting with a client or the housing specialist figuring out what to do when a client misses an appointment. Perhaps the program coordinator deciding which requirement can bend when reality refuses to cooperate. These scenarios are where strategy becomes practice. It's also where something important happens that many strategic plans overlook: frontline staff interpret organizational policy and make decisions about how it will actually work. Public policy scholars have studied this phenomenon for decades. It may also apply to the nonprofit sector.

Meet the Street-Level Bureaucrat

In his influential 1980 book Street-Level Bureaucracy, political scientist Michael Lipsky argued that public policy doesn't get implemented solely through laws, regulations, and administrative directives. It also gets made by the people who interact directly with the public: police officers, teachers, social workers, public benefits caseworkers, or health workers.

Lipsky called these workers street-level bureaucrats because they operate where government policy meets the people it's supposed to serve. They often work with limited resources, significant demands, ambiguous rules, and considerable discretion. And because no policy can anticipate every situation they'll encounter, they have to make judgments. That's the important part.

The People Implementing Policy are Interpreting the Strategy and Its Gap

Nonprofits may not be government agencies, but many nonprofit employees work under remarkably similar conditions. They work directly with clients, students, patients, families, tenants, job seekers, survivors, or community members.

They have policies and procedures, but those policies can't possibly account for every situation that walks through the door. So, staff make decisions every day.

Consider a nonprofit whose strategy says: "We will improve access to services for underserved residents." That's a perfectly reasonable strategic priority. But what happens when:

· someone shows up thirty minutes late for an appointment?

· the intake form doesn't capture the person's circumstances?

· the eligibility requirements exclude someone who clearly needs help?

· a client doesn't have the required documentation?

· the waiting list is full?

The strategic plan sometimes doesn't answer those questions. Someone else needs to provide one, and that someone is usually much closer to the client than the executive director or board chair.

This is where the street-level perspective becomes useful for nonprofit leaders. The real operating rules of an organization aren't found only in the strategic plan or policy manual. They're also found in the decisions people make when the rules meet reality.

Discretion Isn't a Problem to Eliminate

Leaders sometimes respond to these situations by trying to eliminate discretion. Tactics could include writing a tighter policy, creating a more detailed procedure, or standardizing the process, including an approval process.

This impulse is understandable because inconsistency can create real problems, particularly when clients receive different treatment depending on which staff member they encounter. But there's a catch. You can't write a policy for every possible human situation. At some point, someone has to exercise judgment.

Lipsky's work helps explain why. Frontline workers have discretion because the work itself requires it. They encounter situations that rules can't fully anticipate, and they have to decide how to respond. The question isn't whether frontline staff will exercise discretion. They will. The better question is whether the organization has given them enough clarity, training, support, and authority to exercise it well.

Strategy Changes Meaning in Practice

This has a direct connection to strategic planning. Suppose the board approves a goal to "increase community engagement." What does that mean to the person running programs? Maybe it means holding more community meetings or creating a new advisory committee. Could it mean they should be spending more time listening to clients? Everyone can support "community engagement" while doing something completely different.

When strategic priorities are broad, frontline employees have to fill in the blanks. They interpret what leadership means and translate it into daily decisions, and those interpretations can vary.

This is one reason I've argued that clarity is one of the conditions a strategy needs to survive. If people don't understand what the organization is trying to accomplish, they'll inevitably make their own decisions about what matters most.

The People Closest to the Work Know Things You Don't

There's another reason nonprofit leaders should pay attention to this research. Frontline staff have information about whether the strategy makes sense. They know where the process breaks down, which requirements frustrate clients, and what people actually ask for versus what leadership assumes they want. And they often know these things long before the data appears in a quarterly report.

This doesn't mean frontline staff are always right. Neither are executives. The point is that they possess a form of knowledge leadership may not have, which is knowledge generated through repeated contact with the actual work. Ignoring that knowledge can make implementation harder than it needs to be.

Sometimes organizations involve staff in the strategy process through surveys or focus groups, only to cast the results aside while the planning process continues. Staff are asked for their perspectives, but there's no clear indication that anyone actually used what they heard. That can be worse than not asking in the first place. People notice when participation is performative, and the next time leadership asks for input, they may reasonably wonder whether it's worth their time.

If staff repeatedly identify the same barriers, client concerns, or practical problems, leaders shouldn't dismiss those observations simply because they complicate the strategy. They should ask what the feedback reveals about the strategy's assumptions. Consultation isn't meaningful if the answers can't change the conversation.

And when leadership chooses a different course despite what staff reported, that's a decision worth explaining. Staff doesn't need to get their way every time. They do need to know that their expertise was heard, considered, and taken seriously.

Maynard-Moody Adds Another Layer

Later research by Steven Maynard-Moody and Michael Musheno pushed the street-level perspective further. Their work examined how frontline public workers actually make decisions about the people they serve. Rather than viewing workers simply as people applying formal rules, they found that workers often rely on judgments about individual circumstances, deservingness, responsibility, and need.

That's uncomfortable territory, but nonprofits shouldn't dismiss it because those decisions shape people's experiences of the organization. They may also shape outcomes more than the beautifully worded strategy sitting in the executive director's office.

What Leaders Should Ask Instead

The street-level perspective changes the questions I think nonprofit leaders should ask about implementation.

Instead of asking:

"Are staff following the strategy?"

Ask:

"How are staff interpreting the strategy?"

Instead of:

"Why aren't people following the process?"

Ask:

"Where does the process break down when it meets real situations?"

Instead of:

"Why are staff resisting this initiative?"

Ask:

"What are staff seeing that we aren't?"

And instead of treating exceptions as evidence that someone isn't following the rules, ask:

"What is this exception telling us about the rule?"

That last question can be particularly useful. If staff repeatedly have to work around the same policy, you may have a design problem, rather than a compliance problem.

Your Frontline Staff Are Part of Your Strategy System

This doesn't mean organizations should give frontline employees unlimited discretion, and it doesn't mean every policy should become optional. I’m also not suggesting leadership gets to shrug and say, "Well, staff will figure it out." It means we should recognize something strategic planning often misses.

Frontline staff aren’t simply the recipients of strategy. They're part of the system through which strategy becomes real. Their decisions shape how policies are experienced. Their workarounds reveal where systems don't fit reality, and their judgments affect consistency, access, relationships, and outcomes.

If you want to know whether your strategy will work, don't ask only the people who designed it. Also ask the people who have to use it. They may know something the strategic plan doesn't.

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.