By Evelyn Rivas, Senior Strategy Development Consultant, Schunk Moreland Strategies
Nonprofits and higher education institutions put a great deal into developing a strategic plan. They dedicate staff time and invite people across their organizations and communities to help shape the direction. Months of conversation and careful decisions lead to a plan that people are ready to support. Getting to that point is an accomplishment.
Then Monday arrives. Staff return to the responsibilities that were there before the plan was approved. Programs and student services need attention. A grant report is due. An open position still needs to be filled. The new priorities are now part of that same workload.
What changes on Monday?
For many nonprofits and colleges, this is where the struggle begins. The planning process had dedicated time and someone responsible for keeping it moving. Implementation needs that same attention, but there may be little room for it in the day ahead. The people expected to advance the plan are also serving students, supporting community members, and keeping daily operations running. They can believe in the direction and still struggle to find the time or support to move it forward.
The investment in developing a strategic plan should include an honest conversation about what it will take to implement it. As leaders decide what their organization or institution will commit to, they also need to make room for those commitments in the budget and in people’s work.
Account for the Investment Implementation Requires
During planning, organizations set aside time for interviews, working sessions, and board discussions. There is usually someone coordinating the process and keeping it moving. People know what they are being asked to contribute and when the next conversation will happen.
After approval, that structure can become less clear. Responsibility shifts to departments and teams whose existing commitments continue. A college may assign a new student success initiative to a department already managing heavy caseloads. A nonprofit may commit to expanding community outreach without accounting for the staff time needed to build those relationships.
Implementation deserves a place in budget and staffing conversations. Some priorities will require additional funding. Others will depend on people having protected time to improve a process or coordinate work across departments. Even work that does not require new spending has a cost in time and attention.
Before committing to a priority, ask the people who will carry it out what it will take. Their answers should help shape the scope and timing of the commitment.
Decide What Comes First
A multiyear plan gives an organization room to work toward meaningful change. Leaders still need to decide which pieces should begin first and what can reasonably wait.
Some priorities depend on earlier work. A nonprofit may want to expand a program but first need to understand whether its staffing model can support growth. A college seeking to improve student persistence may need to examine where students encounter difficulties before deciding which services to expand.
Those early steps belong in the implementation plan. They give people a realistic starting point and help leaders avoid setting deadlines before they understand what the work requires. In higher education, that timing may also need to account for academic calendars and shared governance processes. Nonprofits may need to work around grant cycles or periods of peak service demand.
For each priority, consider what progress should look like in the first year. Then narrow the conversation to the next 90 days. Identify the work that will make the next step possible. That level of specificity helps people connect a broad goal to something they can begin.
Make Room in the Workload
Every new priority makes a claim on someone’s time. Leaders need to discuss what will change in the existing workload to make that time available.
This can be a difficult conversation in organizations where the work is closely connected to mission. Delaying an activity or reducing a service can feel consequential because people depend on it. Faculty and staff may already be stretching to meet needs, and a new assignment can create competing expectations even when they support the goal.
Ask what can be simplified, delayed, or discontinued. Consider whether responsibilities need to be redistributed or whether additional support is necessary. Be specific about these decisions so people can act on them.
When leaders name a new priority and leave every existing expectation in place, employees are left to decide what gets attention. Making room for implementation is a leadership responsibility. It should be part of the commitment made when the priority is approved.
Give People the Support to Carry Their Assignments
Assigning an owner helps establish who will coordinate the work and keep it moving. That person also needs to understand what they can decide and how others will contribute.
For example, a college’s advising director may be responsible for an initiative that depends on participation from academic departments. A nonprofit program director working to improve participant retention may need colleagues who oversee registration and communications to make changes to their processes.
In both cases, progress depends on working relationships and decisions that extend beyond the person named in the plan. Those contributions need to be discussed and agreed upon.
Have the conversation about responsibilities early. Make sure the person leading the work knows where to bring a decision they cannot make alone. When several departments are involved, establish how they will coordinate and whose time has been committed.
A useful check is to ask the person responsible to describe their next step and what they need to take it. Their answer can reveal whether the assignment is ready to move forward.
Help People Understand What the Plan Means for Their Work
Sharing the completed plan is an important step. People also need opportunities to discuss how it will affect their responsibilities.
Someone who contributed to a listening session may want to understand how that input shaped the final priorities. A department chair or program manager may need guidance on what to emphasize with their team. An employee taking on a new responsibility may need training before they can begin.
These conversations should continue as implementation unfolds. Questions will emerge as people apply the plan to actual decisions. Leaders may also learn that an expectation was unclear or that a process works differently than they understood.
Make space for that feedback. A concern about workload or timing provides information that can help the organization adjust its approach. Addressing it early can prevent the same concern from becoming a larger obstacle later.
Use Progress Reviews to Help the Work Move
Implementation needs a regular place on the leadership agenda. Agree on when progress will be reviewed and what information will make those conversations useful.
Along with reviewing what has been completed, discuss what is getting in the way. A delayed activity may require a budget decision or help from another department. The review should lead to a response, with someone responsible for following through.
It also helps to distinguish between completing an activity and achieving its purpose. Introducing a new student outreach process or volunteer orientation marks progress. Understanding whether it helps students stay enrolled or volunteers continue serving requires follow through over time. Both deserve attention when reviewing the plan.
Keep reporting manageable. People need enough structure to communicate clearly without spending excessive time preparing updates. Give the board information that supports oversight and brings forward decisions within its role.
A strategic plan represents commitments to the people an organization serves and to those who will carry the work forward. Fulfilling those commitments requires continued attention after the document is approved.
At your next leadership meeting, choose one priority and look closely at what has been put behind it. Consider whether the person responsible has the time and resources to begin, and identify any decision holding up the work.
Use that conversation to make a concrete adjustment. It might mean protecting time in someone’s schedule or revising a timeline to reflect what the work actually requires. That is how the investment in planning begins to show up in the daily life of a nonprofit or institution, and how people can see what changes on Monday.
