Hide table of contents

tl;dr: McKinsey is offering its Organizational Health Index survey free to nonprofits through April 14 March 31. Outputs of the OHI include benchmarks and best-practice recommendations for improving work environment, governance, etc. Link to apply.

Disclosure: I worked at McKinsey London from Nov 2020-June 2022 in the organization, strategy, and digital/analytics practices. These are my personal opinions formed individually.

What is the organizational health index?

A tool for benchmarking how healthy organizations are. It incorporates nine dimensions of organizational health, including both internal factors (e.g., quality of work environment) and external factors (e.g., position within ecosystem).

The OHI also provides recommendations for how to improve an organization's health going forward (including webinars explaining best practices).

Why would a nonprofit want to benchmark its organizational health?

Healthier organizations are more capable of achieving their missions. They have mission clarity, effective leadership, a work environment that leads to higher performance and great staff development, processes that support effective management, and the capabilities to execute on their goals; they innovate more and more often, and they contribute more to the broader ecosystem of which they're a part.

Healthier nonprofits also tend to have better staff outcomes: retaining them for longer, engaging them more fully, and being recommended more highly by them.

Although most EA organizations have clear missions and highly engaged staff, they may benefit from understanding where there are opportunities to grow - for example, by implementing mechanisms to develop their staff further, manage risk, or partner effectively.

Benchmarking can help with this, as it aggregates experiences from many different organizations in the public, private, and social sectors. McKinsey's org practice has expertise in managing large and small organizations, so their benchmarking tool's outputs, appropriately tailored to the context of EA nonprofits, may be useful.

What are the costs?

Money: zero (as long as you're a qualifying nonprofit)

Time: 10 hours for a project manager, plus 20-30 mins per employee taking the survey

Privacy: Deidentified results from many different organizations get aggregated into future versions of the benchmark

Which nonprofits are eligible?

Per the website (emphasis mine): 

  • "Nonprofits must have at least 20 staff members to participate (i.e., full-time and part-time staff and contractors working in a staff augmentation capacity, who are responsible for core operations).
  • Nonprofits may not be hospitals or healthcare systems, universities, lobbying organizations, or government- or state-owned entities.
  • Nonprofits must pass a screening against standard international Watchlists and Sanctions lists.
  • Nonprofits must be able to allocate a Project Manager who is proficient in English to run the OHI and who can dedicate ~10 hours from application form until survey closure (e.g., to set up the survey, share survey communications, send follow-up emails to staff to increase participation). Example Project Managers could include HR colleagues or dedicated PMs within the nonprofit."

What's the process to get started?

  • Before April 14 March 31, have your organization's HR director or equivalent visit this link and fill in the application: https://www.mckinsey.org/ohi-for-nonprofits
    • EDIT: Noticed the website announced a deadline extension to April 14. From a quick scan, it looks like the application takes ~10-20 minutes.
  • Appoint a project manager internally to run the survey
  • Run the survey
  • Receive results
  • Prioritize actions to take on the basis of the organization's results

15

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for sharing!

This isn't on you, but just sharing that the website feels really lacking in detail and salesy. It isn't clear to me at all:

  1. What the normal price is
  2. Why this would be any better than all the other offerings
  3. Why I should particularly go through the significant additional red tape vs. other options
  4. If this will be repeatable; after all, being able to compare results over time is likely a huge amount of the value of these things

If you happen to know any of these answers, I'd be interested. Otherwise, this comment is just to help others know some potential issues before they decide whether to investigate further.

Thanks for the comment! Hope these help:

2: I don't have knowledge about the comparative quality of OHI vs. other options (e.g., Gallup and CultureAmp)

3: The process didn't seem to me to have significant additional red tape. ~10h seems about right to run such a survey end to end. The application form asks for basic details such as contact info, organization name/mission, organization size/location, etc.

4: I don't know. Last year's iteration of OHI-for-nonprofits seems to have been a pilot.

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
22
CEEALAR
· · 1m read