Just caught myself using the word ‘incongruent’ for about the 15th time in two days.
It’s kind of a long geeky word but I’m stuck on some sort of soap box with it.
As in, if you really have a plan to transform education it’s completely incongruent that you would not be in conversation with Eli Broad, Gill & Melinda Gates and the Ford Foundation.
As in, if you believe you can do it, it just doesn’t register on my radar that you would not be working together.
As in, forget about the money for a second. Seriously. These three names (examples) are putting TONS of resources into transforming education (example purpose) – the idea that you would not be at the table together… I don’t know how you will make this impact happen without having that conversation.
Our For Impact refrain: Impact Drives Income
In strategies, we too often worry about how to ‘make the pitch’ or ‘get the angle to get in the door’. We need to go up a few levels – think about the impact. At the IMPACT level we need to be talking to with the top funding stakeholders – also means we need to be prepared to talk (and listen) re: IMPACT first.
This is what we mean when we say working ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with others. For me, it’s often the REASON for the introduction or meeting.
Substitute example above for you.
If you’re about promoting entrepreneurship – would be incongruent that you NOT have top entrepreneurs in your city or sector at the table.
If you’re about technology to change nonprofits – incongruent that you would NOT be a major face at SxSW interactive – where some 13,000 tech leaders just gathered to talk about new ideas and changing the world.
If you truly are a top innovator – incongruent that we would not be having conversations with other top innovators (amazon, google, apple).