Back to Blog
I have been browsing some websites of organizations lately.
I noticed a few things that stand out from my observation.
1. Websites that are dated are not tended and updated on a regular basis.
2. Websites that are unattractive are dated and not updated too.
3. Websites of organizations that are unattractive have disadvantages because people do not want to spend more time learning about the organization, therefore not being able to get them to donate, get involved, and become their supporters
4. Websites that are not well-maintained reflects the organization in a negative light, either they are too preoccupied with their operations, have no resources to get better websites or they do not care how they look online
All these things are assumptions people tend to make when they visit a website and found it lacking in many ways.
What we see with our own eyes is reality. And when we a great website, we know that the organization is probably great or doing a good job with their mission. These assumptions are made on the basis of the first impression- the online presence.
Make your online presence the best representation of the organization- interesting, relevant, and well-differentiated.
Back to Blog
Organizations looking for the perfect strategy ends up shooting their foot in the process.
There is no such thing as a perfect strategy. Strategies are products of their own time and influences. It is what you make it collectively that will create the conditions for proper implementation and engagement.
There is too much time devoted to planning that as soon as the strategies are done, the tendency is to undermine it by saying the strategies aren't good enough for their standards, etc.
The real reason behind the dissatisfaction is not because the strategies aren't any good. It is because they cannot implement it in a way that justifies their actions.
Having another strategy to conform to another set of conditions is like putting monies down the drain. Unless the conditions that impede or block effective implementation are addressed, the organization is acting like the cycling hamster.
Too much effort for nothing.
Back to Blog
What can you say of a person that tries to lose more monies in a bad deal? It starts with S and ends with D.
In the face of overwhelming evidence that the deal, business, venture, or enterprise is doomed to fail, why it's even possible that more resources are being invested to it?
Is it wishful thinking, or losing face, or not looking bad in the eyes of the neighbors? Is it about pride? Is it about bad data or bad analysis? Is it about fear of facing the reality or consequences? It is about not accepting that it failed?
Regardless, it is a bad idea to pour money over bad money.
The logic of the day is to cut your losses and run! But when people stubbornly refuse to let go of a failed venture, and turned a blind eye on reality, it is more emotional than anything logical at this point.
You can teach a person to become logical about decision-making but you can't teach a person to be honest with himself.
Being authentic starts from within.