Most organizations are built around a simple equation: Build a business, generate revenue, grow. I spent much of my career working within that equation, where success is often measured by familiar numbers: customers, dollars, CAGR.

Nonprofits start from a different premise. Their purpose is to advance a mission. And I have long argued that the clearest missions rarely have a true endpoint. An organization can work toward its goal for decades without ever being able to say, “We’re done.”

Measuring success can be more complex for nonprofits than for for-profit organizations. But in my work with the iF Design Foundation, a German nonprofit, I have found the opposite can also be true. When there is no ultimate finish line, you must be more intentional about why you do the work and how progress and success get measured.

When growth is the primary objective, almost any decision can be justified so long as it pushes profits in an upward trajectory. Aaron Sorkin’s recent film depiction of Meta, The Social Reckoning, offers one take on what happens when that logic goes unchecked. But when the mission is the destination, a different question comes into focus: Does this decision support what we are ultimately here to achieve?

That question does not make difficult decisions easier, but it gives a clearer framework for making them.

I saw this firsthand when iF Design updated one of its annual iF DESIGN AWARD criteria three years back. We replaced the previous “Impact” criterion, which also included commercial considerations, with “Sustainability,” a framework tailored to the most relevant social and environmental factors in each of the award’s design categories.

Source link