Good point Jeremy.

1. It helps a lot if you describe the lower end of both axes as “not negative.” Any time you draw lines through the middle of a square like this, folks tend to think of the lower (or left) half of the quadrant as “less than 0,” or “negative impact” and “negative effort.”

There are certainly scenarios where an undertaking might actually be so counterproductive you would describe it as “negative impact,” but that’s awfully rare. When I don’t clarify by saying, “that lower part and left-most part is *not negative* . . . it’s just low,” people crowd all of their sticky notes in the upper left.

2. There is a big difference between for-profit and non-profit groups. The analysis (the smiley faces) of each quadrant in this drawing is probably more appropriate for for-profit contexts. In non-profit contexts, I would say that the upper right quadrant *probably* represents the core of their mission—the hard work that they believe is worth doing. Much of what ends up here is not “maybe,” it’s, “this is our work.”

For example, it’s a lot of effort for the Red Cross to collect and preserve blood, but it also has a significant impact. It’s probably easier for them to run PSAs—which might have a pretty significant impact—but what they *do* is get blood into the hands of doctors and hospitals who need it. Again, it’s the core of their work—it’s effortful *and* impactful. I think you’ll find that non-profits across the board fit this model.

Of course, the rest of the chart still makes sense—and the analysis is spot-on.