.png)
Why It Feels Impossible to Lead Your Nonprofit to Bigger and Better Things.
(And Why a New Strategic Plan Won't Get You There.)
By Angela Marino​
You became a nonprofit leader to make bold ideas for changing the world a reality. You have a vision far greater than the one you’d ever dare put on a website or say in a speech. You know your organization can be part of building a better future.
But between the daily grind, endless reporting, and constant pressure to do more with less, it can feel like the whole system itself is designed to hold you back.
​
In many ways, it is.
We inadvertently built a system that favors external appearance over internal health by prioritizing polished reports, fancy galas, and funder optics over staff alignment, culture, and organizational capacity. And in doing so, we’ve cut off our best shot at making our boldest visions real. When we ignore the realities inside our organizations, we can’t build anything that lasts.
​
This system may have started out with good intentions, but it’s drowning nonprofit leaders like you in needless and cumbersome activity to prove your worth. And when you try to use the tools you've inherited to solve the problems you're facing, such as strategic planning, you don’t get any farther.
​
You’re stuck in this cycle because you can’t build a solid organization on a faulty foundation. And the system prefers to keep things shaky. It prefers the status quo. It prefers you stay in the box it's built for you.
​
Layer this longstanding system with drastic changes nonprofits are experiencing in what's funded and by whom, and you've got a crisis of identity. The old tools, in the old system, can’t help you navigate this moment or deliver the change your community is counting on.
​
But there is another way.
​
This essay is your permission slip to see through the fog, reconnect with what really drives impact, and start rebuilding your organization in a way that actually works, in reality.
Nonprofits that step outside the status quo will have the greatest shot at meaningful, sustainable impact.
Who this essay is for:
The piece is for nonprofit leaders who see a brighter future of impact. They know there’s a better approach than the stagnant cycle of “success” we’ve been told is the only way.
​
You’ve probably tried the playbook: strategic plans that sit on shelves, logic models that look tidy but don’t drive change, marketing efforts that feel disconnected from the real work. You’ve followed the rules, hit the KPIs, and still found yourself wondering: Is this really it?
You're tired of:
-
Performative planning
-
Bureaucratic documentation
-
Disconnected and siloed teams
-
Missions that live and die in spreadsheets
-
Unmade decisions and confusion
-
Lack of conviction for what you know is right
You crave:
-
Organizational flow
-
Collective intelligence
-
Full strategic alignment
-
A culture of trust and shared purpose
-
A living, breathing strategy that reflects real input from those who will bring it to life.
​​​
This essay is for the leader who still believes in the power of mission, but who refuses to accept dysfunction as the cost of doing good. It’s for the visionary who is tired of squeezing big dreams into tiny systems.
​
This is not a call to burn everything down. It’s an invitation to build something better. From the inside out.
​
Let’s dive in.
The Five Realities​
In the following sections, I outline five core realities every nonprofit leader should reclaim. These aren't new ideas. In fact, they’re likely things you already believe. Truths you’ve felt in your gut, even if the system around you has made them hard to act on. Over time, they’ve been buried under layers of requirements, expectations, and inherited "rules."
​
My goal is to help you uncover these realities and bring them back to the center of how your organization operates. Because when we build on a foundation of trust, we'll begin to create the future we want to see.
​
Reality #1: Your People Are Your Greatest Asset
Reality #2: Internal Alignment Drives External Impact
Reality #3: Flexibility and Adaptability Are Key to Growth
Reality #4: Shared Language Leads to Shared Action
Reality #5: Thriving Organizations Are Built on Cohesion
​
Reality #1: Your People Are Your Greatest Asset.
(But We Often Don't Act Like It)
​​​​
Your program staff are the ones who turn ideas into action. They’re the ones showing up day after day, building relationships with the community, navigating challenges on the ground, and making your organization’s values tangible.
​
Your fundraising team works behind the scenes to secure the resources that power your work. They’re cultivating trust, building long-term relationships, and translating impact into investment.
​
Your marketing and communications team ensures your story is heard by the right people, in the right way, at the right time. They help shape public perception, attract supporters, and give voice to your mission in a crowded, noisy world.
​
Your support and infrastructure teams (IT, HR, finance, gift processing, etc.) make it all possible. They create the infrastructure, the operations, the logistics, the admin, that allow everyone else to do their jobs well.
Leaders know this.
Intellectually, there’s little debate about the value of these roles.
But in practice we get another story...​
It’s a truth every nonprofit leader knows: without a team of capable, committed people, your mission doesn’t stand a chance.
​The Three Myths That Hold Us Back From Truly Embracing Nonprofit Teams
as the Greatest Asset
​​​​
Myth #1: Nonprofit work isn’t as valuable as corporate work.
Somewhere along the way, society decided that working to create a better world isn’t as valuable as selling people things. That working for a mission should be its own reward. That passion justifies lower pay, fewer resources, and less investment in people.
Consequences:
chronic underfunding of staff positions, limited access to professional development, and poor compensation, leading to burnout and a "talent" shortage in sector
Myth #2: Nonprofit professionals lack expertise.
There are two sides to this coin. On one side you have the jam-packed roles with everything from delivering services to fundraising to making sure the fridge is cleaned out. Nonprofit job descriptions often read like they are looking for a true unicorn.
And on the other side, nonprofit staff are often treated like they aren't really experts (otherwise they'd be working somewhere "better"). They're seen as soft and full of passion, but maybe not cut out for "real work."
​
Consequences:
decline in interest in becoming an executive director, smart people potentially leaving the sector where they are more valued
​
Myth #3: Those with power and influence know best.
Ok. So, we don’t normally say this out loud, but let’s name it: board members and funders often wield outsized influence over decisions. And while many bring critical perspectives and good intentions, they’re not always close to the day-to-day realities.
​​
Consequences:
the clear message that the people doing the work aren't always trusted to lead it, contributing (again) to feelings of burnout and dissatisfaction​​
​
What would it look like to live this reality?
X
Reality #2: Internal Alignment Drives External Impact.
(But That's Not How It's Viewed)
More donors. More likes. More awards. More partners. The nonprofit sector is fueled by external validation.
​​
And it makes sense. Our organizations rely on whether people (funders, donors, corporate partners, etc.) choose to invest in our work.
​
Without outside support, most nonprofits can’t exist, let alone thrive. So it’s not surprising that we orient ourselves around external needs and optics.
​
But when we live in a system that rewards performative metrics over impact, the cracks start to show.
​​
What Nonprofit Leaders Are Up Against
​
A pervasive belief that low “overhead” equals strong leadership.
If you're reading this, you already know how short-sighted this is. Donors have been trained to think this way by rating systems, media narratives, and even our own sector’s messaging. We’re now in a world where "success" means spending as little as possible on culture (even though we know a strong internal culture deepens impact).
Funding that fuels siloed programs, not integrated strategies.
Narrow funding creates “projects” instead of progress. You end up expanding programs that get the funding, regardless of whether or not they’re programs that need to expand. And, eventually, everyone is scrambling to meet different metrics for different funders with different timelines.
A constant need to deliver short-term results.
Donors, funders, and boards want to see immediate results for their investments. Long-term strategy and complex problems don’t get a chance to play into it. And systems change is rarely even on the radar.
.png)
All of this leads to a cycle of scarcity that fuels misalignment:
​
​​​​
This cycle says we'll never take the time to build a healthy and cohesive organization because that's not what matters most.
But there's a disconnect here.
Because we all want donors to be able to get our work. In fact, Crucial Donors, a report from The Center for Effective Philanthropy’s report, states “major donors need to understand their organizations and the context of their work better than they currently do.”
​
So I ask:
-
How can you invite funders into deeper understanding when your own team has five different definitions of impact?
-
How can you communicate with clarity when your staff is unclear on where you’re headed?
-
How can you ask others to believe in your mission if you’re forced to chase someone else’s definition of success?
Make it make sense.
​​​
We're just into so-called "alignment."
“Oh, that’s just culture stuff.”
Misconception: It’s about making people feel good or team bonding exercises.
Reality: Culture is part of it, but alignment is about decision-making, clarity, strategy, and how work actually gets done.
​
“That’s HR’s thing.”
Misconception: Alignment is owned by HR or comms.
Reality: It’s an organization-wide muscle.
​
“We’re already aligned; we all believe in the mission.”
Misconception: Passion equals alignment.
Reality: You can have a room full of passionate people pulling in different directions. Alignment = shared understanding of how you get there.
​
“It sounds nice, but we don’t have time for that right now.”
Misconception: It’s a “nice-to-have.”
Reality: Alignment is foundational. Alignment is the work. Misalignment costs time, trust, and resources.
​
“That means consensus...we’ll never get there.”
Misconception: Alignment means everyone must agree or we’re doing it wrong.
Reality: Alignment is about shared direction, not uniform opinion. It welcomes healthy tension in service of clarity.
​
“Alignment is just for staff. The board can do own thing.”
Misconception: It doesn't matter if board and staff are aligned or not.
Reality: When the board is aligned with internal teams, it helps rebalance power and fosters mutual trust.
The Shift
If you're able to step outside of the cycle of scarcity and start to build internal alignment, you find:
-
A sharper message that internal teams feel deeply and can articulate outwardly
-
Enthusiasm for your work that permeates from inside the organization to your best-fit supporters
-
Connections between people and programs and results
​
In other words: internal alignment drives external results.​​
​​
But instead?
We’re still writing strategic plans no one’s ready to follow.
​
And that’s where we’re headed next...
Reality #3: Flexibility and Adaptability Are Key to Growth...
(But We're Too Caught Up in Performative Planning)
The only constant is change, as they say.
And yet nonprofits are expected to navigate that change with a single, rigid tool: the strategic plan.
​
Strategic plans tend to lock organizations into one way of thinking for the next 3–5 years. They often assume a level of environmental stability that simply doesn’t exist (did we learn nothing from COVID?). And despite the time and resources they consume, they rarely lead to the transformative impact we hope for.
​
Here are real things nonprofit leaders have confided in me:
​
"We spent hours tweaking one word in the organization's vision statement—and that was the extent of the changes made."
​
"We spent over $100,000 on 'strategic listening sessions,' but didn’t incorporate any of the insights into the final plan, which was never acted on anyway."
​
"We created such a long list of metrics that we needed to hire a full-time person just to track them. The position was never approved."
​
How did this become the gold standard for nonprofit evolution? Let’s take a quick trip down memory lane...
​
​
A Brief History of Nonprofit Strategic Planning
​
Strategic planning didn’t originate in the nonprofit sector. It was adopted from corporate management practices that gained traction in the 1950s and ’60s, an era when business leaders were searching for more structure and foresight in their decision-making.
​
As the nonprofit sector grew in size and complexity, it borrowed these tools in hopes of bringing the same level of discipline and long-term thinking to mission-driven work.
​
By the 1990s, strategic planning had become a cornerstone of nonprofit management. Funders expected to see one. Boards demanded one. Consultants sold it as essential.
It was widely viewed as a “must-have” for any organization that wanted to be taken seriously, secure funding, and demonstrate accountability.
​
Over time, the format evolved. The long, rigid binders of the past (famously, often shelved and never revisited), gave way to more agile, supposedly flexible frameworks. Nonprofits were encouraged to treat strategic plans as living documents: regularly reviewed, adapted to changing conditions.
​
But for all that evolution in format and language, some of the core flaws have never been addressed. Many plans still lack genuine buy-in from the people expected to implement them. They often fail to engage the communities they aim to serve (an essay for another time). And too often, they focus more on process than purpose, leaving organizations with a polished document that doesn’t actually drive meaningful change.
​
So here we are in 2025. Standing on the precipice of what could be the biggest shake-up the American nonprofit sector has ever experienced—and our one and only strategy for navigating it is… another strategic plan?
​
At what cost?
​
​
