My Two Cents_11

Bridgespan posits that deeper connections with constituents can equate to greater organizational (nonprofit) value and impact. Makes sense to me.

I especially like the way it spells out in a 2013 article some of the more promising forms of constituent engagement and how they differ in intensity. On the weaker-shallower end of things, when an organization conducts a satisfaction survey, for example, it receives timely and useful input but doesn't generally learn much about the respondents, who don't reveal much about themselves in the process. Engage those same respondents in a focus group, by comparison, and the organization is likely to gain a deeper understanding of their aspirations, challenges, and strengths -- and the respondents themselves are likely feel more connected to the organization.

Moving to the other end of the spectrum...

Stronger-deeper forms of engagement are tied to cases where constituents are co-creating, doing high-value mission-driven work, and /or controlling organizational resources, i.e., where they're taking some ownership.

Whenever constituents (feel free to substitute inside-outsiders, or, better yet, parents and family members) respond to an organization’s engagement efforts they're essentially doing work for that organization. They're giving it something of value -- often just for the asking -- that it would otherwise have to spend resources to acquire.

Key takeaways for organization leaders? 

Constituents can help advance your missions in a number of ways, many of which you probably haven't given much thought to. And -- the other side of the coin -- there are also a number of ways to draw people in who may be both willing and able to help you carry out your mission.