There are many ways to create results as a funder. But if you’re a donor who mostly funds nonprofit organizations, your results are their results. How then, besides selecting the right organizations, can you help them succeed?

We’ve found that true funding partnerships are marked by two things–first, a shared vision of success; and second, a strong working relationship. Sounds simple, but it isn’t. Imagine that you fund an afterschool program about which you feel passionately. Your idea of growth is to work more deeply in the community, but the nonprofit CEO’s goal is to grow to 50 cities. Or perhaps you would prefer to get more involved and sit on the board of this organization, while the leader would prefer just a check.

In these situations, no one is right—each viewpoint is supported by personal belief and good intentions. The problem is you end up with misalignment that likely won’t produce the results you hope to see. When considering your relationship with your grantee, to what extent do you have shared goals and a productive relationship? Would you say you have a true philanthropic partnership, or does this pairing constitute a train wreck?

Strategies for improving your relationship do exist—for example, actively clarifying the strategic disconnects around shared goals and identifying practical ways to better communicate. For more on how to diagnose your relationships and ways to make them better, click here.

You are passionate about a cause and you want to create real change in people’s lives. But the needs of your chosen cause will consistently dwarf the supply of available capital. So how can you put your money where it will make the most difference? Not surprisingly the first step is researching the field. Start with the basics, like identifying other funders and the solutions that seem to be working already. If your idea isn’t better than what is already out there, it will likely be an uphill climb to convince co-funders to get on board.

So before you jump in on an exciting new initiative, think about the questions you want to ask. Many of these challenges have been around for a while, and you are likely not the first to tackle your chosen issue. Given that–might there be “watch outs” to learn from so you don’t throw good money after bad? Are there potential partners to seek out whom you could join rather than going it alone?

Jeff Walker did such a thing when he teamed up with NPower. Walker began with a desire to help nonprofits that were struggling with technology. He discovered that a nonprofit–NPower–with a similar mission already existed. Instead of duplicating efforts, Walker teamed with NPower to create a thriving nonprofit. Click here to read the full story.

Sometimes conventional goals and measures don’t capture what you are really trying to achieve with your philanthropy. Take ProPublica, an independent newsroom created to conduct investigative reporting. The Sandler Foundation conceived and incubated ProPublica in 2007 as a way to fight corruption. You would think the two Pulitzers ProPublica has garnered in only four short years would be enough to declare the initiative a success. But according to Herb Sandler, (co-president with his wife, Marion, of the Sandler Foundation): “As much as we admire investigative journalism, the story is not the end. If it doesn’t change behavior, it was an interesting exercise, but essentially meaningless.”

It can be hard to define what success means to you, and it can be tempting to shoot for visible yardsticks (like Pulitzers) that aren’t ultimately meaningful. In his wise and highly readable new book Leap of Reason, Mario Morino explores practical ways to measure results. His suggestions are highly aligned with the thoughts I shared last week on a good definition of success: It should reflect your values and beliefs, be bounded and useful in decision making, and allow you to gauge progress and get better over time.

For more on how the Sandlers worked to make the ProPublica concept a reality, click here…

In launching the Give Smart initiative, one of my mantras has been to "de-jargonify." This goal has led me to realize that jargon presents not only a translation challenge. (For example, translate one word for another and the job’s done.) My “jargon diet” has taught me that the challenge is more fundamental. There are a number of terms–take your pick: theory of change, benchmark, output, outcome, I could go on–that mean very different things to different people. And there is often no one word that will suffice.

One of these words is at the core of our work at Bridgespan: "strategy." I’ve been writing about adaptive strategy lately–and I defined such strategy to include “a clear but flexible definition of success, clear criteria for what kinds of opportunities are in and out, nimble decision-making, an openness to new ideas, and a passionate commitment to continuous improvement.”

So in the vein of my jargon diet, I thought I would try to clearly describe what I mean by the first criteria: "defining success." I have been tempted to skip this step many times in my work with clients, often at their bequest, because they think they and their staff already know the answer.  In my experience, however, the resulting conversation is often among the most soul-baring and important. Why? Because "defining success" involves that messy blend of head and heart: What do you care passionately about changing in the world, and how will you measure whether you can claim victory or admit failure? How could that not lead to a significant discussion?

As noted in Give Smart,  a working definition of success satisfies three criteria:

1. It reflects the values and beliefs of the philanthropist
2. It is bounded enough to help you decide what you will and will not fund. You can actually use it to make decisions
3. It will allow you to gauge progress–or its absence

So what do you think are the markers of a good goal? How do you know when you are there? What techniques have you found useful in goal-setting?

For more on our thoughts on goal setting, and building a plan to attain the goals, see Defining Success.