From Strategic Signals to Steady Footing Practicing Coherence in an Unstable Environment

By Eileen Lawless. Originally published on Substack

Jarvis Williams’ recent essay, When Strategy Signals Instability, offers a careful account of a dynamic many in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors are already experiencing. His framing of institutions as signal generators, and his focus on the relationship between mission, strategy, and operational decisions, helps explain why organizations adapting in reasonable ways can still appear inconsistent.

This is a useful contribution. It names a pattern that is often felt but not well articulated. When signals from philanthropic institutions become harder to interpret, planning becomes more difficult, partnerships more tentative, and coordination can weaken. Over time, this raises questions not only about effectiveness, but about credibility and the basis of institutional authority.

Across organizations I have worked with, this has at times taken the form of shifting guidance from funders over short periods, encouragement to expand programming in response to demand, followed by requests to narrow scope due to emerging risks. Each decision is reasonable on its own. Taken together, they can leave organizations uncertain about direction.

Williams is careful not to attribute this to poor leadership or lack of discipline. He situates it within broader pressures. Philanthropic institutions are responding to changing political conditions, increased scrutiny, and urgent social demands. From the inside, decisions may feel pragmatic. From the outside, they can appear to shift direction in ways that are difficult to reconcile.

This helps explain how instability can emerge even when actors are acting in good faith.

At the same time, philanthropic signaling sits within a wider environment where nonprofit organizations are also managing instability. Many are navigating changing policy conditions, heightened regulatory and reputational risk, and increasing demand for services. Recent executive actions have added further uncertainty for some, particularly in how they assess compliance and public positioning. Instability in this context is layered rather than episodic.

This matters because it changes how the role of philanthropy is understood. In more stable conditions, inconsistent signals from funders would be one source of disruption. In the current environment, philanthropic behavior becomes more consequential. It is one of the few variables in the system that can be shaped intentionally. The question is not only how philanthropic institutions avoid contributing to instability, but how they might help reduce it.

Williams points to strategic coherence as a stabilizing force. Coherence allows signals to be interpreted with greater confidence, even as conditions change, helping partner organizations understand how decisions are made and how priorities evolve.

The challenge is that coherence cannot be assumed. It must be produced under the same conditions that make it difficult to sustain.

As conditions become more complex or constrained, a similar pattern appears across organizations. External conditions shift, information is incomplete, and decisions must be made under pressure. Organizations respond by looking outward for clarity, tracking signals and adjusting accordingly. This is reasonable, but it has unintended effects. When too much attention is directed outward, internal coherence can weaken. Different parts of the organization respond to different signals, and decisions are made without a shared frame of reference. Over time, organizations can reproduce the instability they are trying to navigate.

I have seen this play out repeatedly in high-pressure contexts. Program teams adapt to changing needs, communications teams grow more cautious about how work is described publicly, and leadership revisits strategy in response to funding signals. Each adjustment is grounded in sound judgment. Without a shared frame, they can move in different directions and send contradictory signals internally and externally.

Externally, this can erode trust with the communities these organizations serve. As communications become more cautious, references to specific groups or issues may be softened or removed, sometimes for valid safety or risk reasons. When those shifts are not clearly explained, communities may experience them as a loss of clarity or commitment, even when the underlying work remains unchanged.

When conditions are harder to read, the first task is not better prediction but stronger orientation. What is changing, what is not, what matters now, and where can we act? From there, teams hold core commitments steady and make deliberate choices about where to adapt.

I have seen this done well in practice. In one organization operating under significant political and legal pressure over the past year, this took the form of maintaining a clear commitment to its core service model while adapting around it. As funding shifted, scrutiny increased, and legal challenges emerged, leadership stayed focused on demonstrating the effectiveness of its methodological approach, while adjusting geographic scope and external engagement. That clarity about what would not change allowed the organization to absorb shocks without losing direction or morale.

In another setting, leaders within an umbrella organization supporting a network of affiliated nonprofits have taken on the role of helping their affiliates distinguish between what requires a response and what does not. As guidance, policies, and external signals shift rapidly, the pressure to react to everything can be high. Creating shared clarity about what requires action, what warrants monitoring, and what can be set aside has helped those organizations stay focused on their mission without overextending limited capacity.

This demonstrates that coherence can be practiced. It is expressed through patterns of decision making that are legible over time and reinforced by clarity about what will change and what will not. It becomes visible in how organizations communicate shifts in priorities, sequence actions, and explain their reasoning.

This applies to both nonprofit organizations and philanthropic institutions.

For nonprofits, the task is to maintain internal clarity while adapting to external pressure. This means limiting simultaneous adjustments, aligning on assumptions before responding publicly, and being deliberate about what not to change.

For philanthropic institutions, the task is to keep adaptations understandable to partners. This does not mean slowing down. It means making changes in ways partners can follow and explaining what is shifting and why.

In both cases, the goal is not to create fixed conditions. It is to act with consistency and clarity as conditions change.

Stability in the sector is shaped through interaction and relationships. When organizations share a clearer understanding of the environment, communicate more directly about constraints and tradeoffs, and establish a common view of how they will navigate pressure, they reduce uncertainty for one another and reinforce trust. This does not eliminate risk or disagreement. It makes coordination more possible.

The capacity to remain steady is not a role assigned to one part of the system. It is a discipline that must be practiced across it. The current moment places that discipline under strain, but also makes it more necessary. When instability comes from many directions, acting with coherence becomes one of the few stabilizing forces institutions can control.

Williams’ essay makes clear that inconsistent signals can weaken trust and coordination over time. The corollary is that coherent practice can strengthen both.

The environment is unlikely to settle anytime soon. Political, legal, regulatory, and funding conditions will continue to shift. The question is how philanthropic institutions and nonprofits choose to operate within that reality. Clarity does not arrive once uncertainty fades. It is established, maintained, and communicated while uncertainty is still present. That work is shared across the system.

#NonprofitLeadership #Philanthropy #CivilSociety #OperatingUnderPressure #OrganizationalResilience