We're a group of strategic advisors who help nonprofits like Feeding America and Horizons National leverage the power of strategy to increase their impact.

Ready to talk?

Search
START TYPING AND PRESS ENTER TO SEARCH

What is Strength-Based Communication? And What Is it NOT?

By Alyssa Conrardy

Strength-Based Communication (and other, related practices) have taken the nonprofit sector by storm in the last few years, as more organizations have begun to center equity in everything they do. But do you really understand what Strength-Based Communication is, and just as importantly, what it is not? 

In this post, we’re going back to basics, defining Strength-Based Communication, and differentiating it from other, similar concepts that it is often confused with. Then, we’re offering you a toolbox of guides, resources and related reading that can help your nonprofit move toward a more strength-based approach to its communication.

Table of Contents

Strength-Based Communication (definition)

Communication that emphasizes the strengths, opportunities and power of an individual, group or community. It represents people positively, in a way that feels true and empowering to them.

Evolving toward Strength-Based Communication should be a priority for any organization that cares about equity and inclusion (which should be every organization!) It is perhaps best understood in relation to its alternatives: stereotype-based communication and need-based communication, so let’s define those terms as well. 

Need-Based Communication (definition)

Communication that emphasizes the needs and challenges of an individual, group or community more than the strengths.

Need-based communication can be effective for generating support, but it has a variety of unintended consequences, such as “othering” the people a nonprofit serves and positioning donors, funders and volunteers as saviors. It should be avoided or dialed down whenever possible.

Stereotype-Based Communication (definition)

Communication that exploits the condition of a group that experiences disadvantages in order to generate the necessary sympathy for increasing support and charitable donations for a cause.

Stereotype-based communication is a harmful practice that should be discontinued entirely.

Strength-Based Communication Examples

If you’re looking for some concrete examples of Strength-Based Communication, you can find them here.

The Strength-Based Communication Spectrum

All nonprofit communication exists on a spectrum (below), from stereotype to strength. Unless they’ve made a concerted effort to move toward a more strength-based approach, most organizations fall somewhere between need and stereotype-based when it comes to their communication, simply because “that’s the way it has always been done.” Nonprofit marketers, communicators, and (perhaps most of all) fundraisers have been taught that they must emphasize need and pull on heartstrings in order to motivate donors and funders to give their money, volunteers to give their time, and partners to work alongside their cause. But today, more and more organizations are beginning to recognize that these old methods aren’t just becoming less effective with compassion-fatigued supporters; they’re also unintentionally harming the very people and communities nonprofit organizations exist to serve.

Strength-based communication spectrum

Strength-Based Communication Dos and Don’ts

Strength-Based Communication becomes easier to understand once you wrap your head around Strength-Based “dos” and “don’ts.” Let’s take a deeper look. 

Strength-Based Communication DOES:

  • Represent people positively, in a way that feels true and empowering to them
  • Center and uplift community voices and use people-first language
  • Acknowledge and celebrate the ability and desire of individuals to overcome obstacles and shape their own futures
  • Use facts
  • Use gender neutral pronouns or individually preferred pronouns
  • Focus on what we all need to be successful

Strength Based Communication DOES NOT:

  • Discredit individual ability, agency or accomplishment
  • Describe one individual’s, group’s or community’s advantages over another
  • Focus solely on challenges without providing context into the systemic inequities that create them
  • Frame needs as individual weaknesses
  • Assume gender or maleness
  • Position an organization or its donors as heroes or lifesavers
  • Define people by their circumstances
  • Use coded language that perpetuates stereotypes

Strength-Based Communication Best Practices

To make this even more straightforward, we’ve established five best practices for Strength-Based Communication, which you can learn more about in our 101 Guide to Strength-Based Communication for Nonprofit Organizations. They include:

  1. Use individual preference and be specific
  2. Use people-first language (unless identity-first language is preferred)
  3. Avoid saviorism and extreme exceptionalism
  4. Emphasize strengths over needs
  5. Avoid coded language

Related Concepts: What Strength-Based Communication is NOT

Strength-based Communication is often confused with other, related concepts that share similar aims. It’s important to distinguish Strength-Based Communication from these other concepts so that the practice can step into its full power.

Strength-Based Communication is not one in the same as:

Community-Centric Fundraising

Community-Centric Fundraising is, in their words, “a fundraising model that is grounded in equity and social justice. We prioritize the entire community over individual organizations, foster a sense of belonging and interdependence, present our work not as individual transactions but holistically, and encourage mutual support between nonprofits.”

Community-Centric Fundraising and Strength-Based communication share many core tenets, including the idea of fostering belonging and avoiding “othering” those who use nonprofit programs and services. However, Community-Centric Fundraising is intended to be applied to every aspect of an organization’s fundraising program, from partnerships to professional development for fundraising professionals. In contrast, Strength-Based Communication is (as the name implies) focused on anywhere and everywhere an organization communicates, from fundraising communication intended for donors, to internal communication intended for employees (and everything in between).

Trust-Based Philanthropy

Trust-based Philanthropy describes itself as “an approach to giving that addresses the inherent power imbalances between funders, nonprofits, and the communities they serve. At its core, trust-based philanthropy is about redistributing power—systemically, organizationally, and interpersonally—in service of a healthier and more equitable nonprofit ecosystem. On a practical level, this includes multi-year unrestricted giving, streamlined applications and reporting, and a commitment to building relationships based on transparency, dialogue, and mutual learning.” This initiative takes many of the same principles that are present in Community-Centric Fundraising and applies them to funders and grantmakers. 

Here again, Trust-Based Philanthropy and Strength-Based Communication are based on similar values and philosophies, but their scope is different. Trust-based Philanthropy applies to every aspect of grantmaking, while Strength-Based Communication applies to the way everyone in the social sector (nonprofits, funders, donors, etc.) communicates.

In order to bring this approach even more into sync with Strength-Based Communication dos, don’ts and best practices, we would love to see Trust-Based Philanthropy expand on its third practice – “simplify and streamline paperwork” – to include guidance about how funders should ask prospective grantees to discuss their impact and communities served in grant applications. Many grant applications are written in a way that inherently requires nonprofits to take a need-based approach in their responses. For example, it’s common to see prompts like “provide quantitative data about the major needs and  challenges of the communities your organization serves,” in grant applications. Questions like this are difficult to answer in a strength-based manner, even when the responding nonprofit is prioritizing Strength-Based Communication elsewhere. 

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Communication Guidelines

It’s been wonderful to see many nonprofits develop guidelines for aligning their communications with their EDI commitments over the last several years. However, these guidelines are not the same thing as Strength-Based Communication Guidelines. Strength-Based Communication prioritizes identifying people how they want to be identified, using individual preference, and being specific. But Strength-Based Communication guidelines typically do not provide comprehensive guidance on the use of terminology related to race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, ability, or other identity-based terms. Most organizations are best served by developing one set of EDI/Identity-Based Communication guidelines, and another set of Strength-Based Communication guidelines/practices, and then using the two in tandem with each other. This allows Strength-Based Communication to move beyond guidance on preferences and terminology, and into best practices for framing, storytelling and positively positioning people and communities in a way that feels true to them.

People-First Language

“People-first language (PFL) is a linguistic prescription that puts a person before a diagnosis, describing what condition a person ‘has’ rather than asserting what a person ‘is.'” For example, people-first language encourages us to say “a person with diabetes” instead of “a diabetic” or “a person with alcoholism” instead of “an alcoholic.”

Use of people-first language is a best practice in Strength-Based Communication, unless, of course, an individual’s preference is for identity-first language.  However, it is just one one of five best practices and over a dozen dos and don’ts, and Strength-Based Communication requires so much more than just taking a people-first approach whenever preferred.

Asset Framing

Asset Framing is perhaps the closest cousin of Strength-Based Communication. The originator of the concept, Trabian Shorters, describes it as “a narrative model that defines people by their assets and aspirations before noting the challenges and deficits. This model invests in people for their continued benefit to society.” 

Strength-Based Communication, similarly, recommends focusing on assets and aspirations before challenge and deficits. But it goes beyond that idea of “order of information” alone, to include guidance surrounding the avoidance of coded language, language that perpetuates saviorism, and more. This is to say, the idea of Asset Framing is just one of several best practices that informs Strength-Based Communication.

None of the concepts listed above are in conflict or discord with Strength-Based Communication. Instead, they should be viewed as working alongside Strength-Based Communication in order to help organizations take more equitable and inclusive approaches to everything they do.

More Resources on Strength-Based Communication

If your organization is interested in moving toward a more strength-based approach to its communication, there are many resources that can help. Here are a few articles and tools from Prosper Strategies to get you started:

We’ve also rounded up a wealth of external resources on Strength-Based Communication and related practices, from everyone like the AP Style Book to FrameWorks Institute here.

If you’re ready to take the next step, learn how you can work with us to define your organization’s approach to Strength-Based Communication, create a Strength-Based Communication guide, and train staff and board members on making the shift.