Posted on: August 27th, 2009 by Reuben Turner

 

We had a fantastic five-hour session with a new client last week. This was prefaced by an induction where they told us what they knew. It was a very short induction.

This is a relatively young charity with a new and (by their own admission) somewhat inexperienced team. They have very few donors, and know almost nothing about those they have. They’ve tried a few things in the past. Some have worked. Some haven’t. No-one is rash enough to make assumptions about why.

This lack of knowledge wasn’t limiting. Just the opposite. It opened up the discussion. This is a team that is ambitious, bright and passionate. And they’re not held back by their predecessors. Because, well, they don’t have any.

All of which started me thinking about something else (even I can’t concentrate solidly for five hours).

It got me thinking about all the inductions I’ve been to in the past with organisations who have not just years, but decades of corporate learning. Teams who are deeply embedded in their donors’ typologies, behaviours, attitudes and values. Directors brandishing a dozen thick research documents from a dozen research companies (some of them just as thick).

The trouble is that all of this learning very rarely adds up to something useful. Much of it is contradictory – both qual and quant. And where it isn’t, there’s little consensus about what it actually means.

What it usually represents is a sum total of knowledge, stories and assumptions about what doesn’t work. It’s a litany of negativity. And it’s a historical record based on a world that’s passing fast.

So how useful is it?

Sometimes it’s much better to start with a blank sheet of paper. I’ll keep you posted as to how it gets filled.