Social impact consulting can be a very dynamic and challenging field. Those from a typical consulting background tend to attack problems with the financial bottom line in mind. While it is true that non-profits need to make money to fund projects, the bottom line for non-profits typically revolves around a central mission. Impact consulting then not only involves advising an organization on how to meet its goals efficiently, but also on how it can achieve long term sustainability after implementing those recommendations, many of which revolve heavily around future fundraising goals.
The Bridgespan Group currently faces several challenges. While it has had success in its strategy consulting services, an inconvenient problem lies within the integration of its various services. Specifically, the services which Bridgespan offered frequently overlapped with multiple clients, and because it had different brand names for different services, it had the potential to create confusion within Bridgespan’s clients.
Another major problem for Bridgespan was a lack of long term focus on its clients. While Bridgespan was able to meet clients’ proximate goals, sustaining those goals was another issue. Since non-profits usually require long-term funding for the implemented projects, and since consultants are not generally considered exceptional at fundraising, there was a significant disconnect between short-term recommendations and long-term strategy.
While the management team of The Bridgespan Group had some insightful theories on what made Bridgespan an efficient organization, they can implement additional dynamic strategies to ensure a more well-rounded focus, not just for the organization, but for its clients as well.
Bridgespan prided itself on its successful group dynamics, stating that it could not implement a successful strategy without a “great team,” and “a great team consists of great talent.” While this may hold on the surface, they minimize the importance of a great system.
One unique flaw of an organization’s intelligence is the belief that it is a direct function of the intelligence of its individual employees. We see it consistently in modern business practices, for example, “employee of the month,” “top performer of the week,” and so on. In a way, it is easy to see why one would assume this. More often than not, a great idea, whether a scientific theory or best-selling novel, is created by an individual, not a group. Organizations, however, work much differently. A successful organization does not rely on a few individuals to battle it out in the long run; a successful organization focuses on a cooperative system. Hence, the system, not the employee, is the star. A great system is a precursor to great strategy, more so than a team of all-star individuals, particularly for a non-profit.
In “The Bridgespan Group: Chapter 2”, the case mentions one of the biggest debates within the firm was whether it should hold itself accountable for the specific outcomes of the strategies it developed for its clients. This debate was between proximate and ultimate goals, and while Bridgespan did decide to focus on the ultimate, the reactions from the clients tell a different story. The clients, in this case, wanted more sustainable strategies. To put it colloquially, they wanted more “hand-holding” along the way. While this may sound juvenile in some respect, it is vital to understand the reason these clients are hiring the group in the first place. Many non-profits focus on short term strategy, i.e., immediate relief and aid. While this certainly is important in today’s world, it hinders sights on long-term goals.
A good analogy, in this case, would be that The Bridgespan Group focuses on helping clients with strategies on how to place a ban-aid on a wound. However, for the mission of any non-profit to be successful, it needs to do more. Bridgespan needs to communicate long-term strategies to clients, and as consultants, they need to guide their clients throughout the entire process. They need to not only teach clients the “how” and “what” on individual cases, but also develop a longitudinal plan. There has to be a periodic follow-up with the clients for quite some. This follow-up focus would ensure that the strategies communicated to the clients continue to garner results, and in turn, ensure accountability for Bridgespan regarding whether its strategies add long-term value for its clients.
Since the model of The Bridgespan Group centers around non-profit consulting and strategy, it was inevitable that Bridgespan would eventually spread itself too thin, as was the case. The difficulty arises from growing too fast, while simultaneously unable to acquire new staff and pay market rates to its consultants.
While the pay dilemma should not be a significant concern, the selection process of consultants can and should be optimized. Bridgespan rotates a good fraction of its consultants from Bain’s primary group, allowing them to experience the social impact sector. While this certainly sounds good in theory, it may overlook the desires of the individual consultants. These are men and women who have made a career out of solving problems, mostly for for-profit companies. More than likely, they are good at what they do; however, it is uncertain if the majority of the consultants are mission-driven. The focus needs to be on the bottom line, which in this case, is the mission, not necessarily generating profit. Recruiting pro-bono consultants for a short period may allow for more exceptional rotational talent, tailored specifically for the field.
Médecins Sans Frontières, a humanitarian aid organization, uses the pro-bono rotational model. They recruit doctors and nurses who volunteer for a short period (3-6 months), then go back to their respected careers. This strategy ensures not only that fresh talent is in rotation, but also talent which is mission-driven as well. An additional benefit to adopting the pro-bono model is financial relief; the volunteers are usually paid only a minor stipend to cover living and housing expenses, which, for a non-profit, is always beneficial.
Though The Bridgespan Group has a functional strategy for its success, it can certainly make enhancements to assist clients more efficiently, particularly within its knowledge-sharing division. Building on the previously mentioned pro-bono model, Bridgespan can develop a more strategic knowledge system through the use of an open network of volunteers. Global transparency groups commonly use this model to share information.
If Bridgespan can develop an active network with other non-profit organizations and NGOs, it can vastly expand its knowledge network. Because this department is funded solely through philanthropy, the risk of losing funding is low. With an open-sourced network of information shared with other impact groups, the firm can only grow; and there is a high likelihood that the information obtained through an open network will carryover and assist the various operating groups within Bridgespan.