I'm just back from a couple of days at the Alliance for Nonprofit Management Strategy Lab. The Alliance convened folks for lots of deep and wide discussion focused on the world of capacity building in the nonprofit sector. For those not in the "know", capacity building is, loosely defined, the work (consulting, advising, training, coaching etc.) that goes on to strengthen what I call the four "pillars" of a nonprofit: program, management/operations, governance and sustainability four "pillars" of a nonprofit). What was said and done here will hopefully be long remembered as well as provide the foundation for the future of capacity building.
Anyway, in recent times a variety of folks, capacity builders, funders and nonprofits have begun to use the term "best practice" when referencing a tried and maybe true learning or methodology that many agree serves as a model for how "something" should be done. Each of my four "pillars" frequently has someone who claims or has identified their methodology or learning as the best practice and generally in doing so, trusts that everybody else will agree and apply the practice to make either better consultants or nonprofits or funders or....well, you get the picture.
Truth be told, there aren't a lot of forums for really declaring some methodology as a best practice and it is likely that the postulator of the idea is the one who starts circulating that such-and-such is a best practice. So much for having confidence that such-and-such that is postualted as best practice is indeed best practice. I believe that the Alliance has the potential of playing a helpful part in identifying, testing and even declaring what is best practice but that's a future topic.
Meanwhile, at the Strategy Lab I became clear that I am not alone, and for good reason, that I cringe when I hear some methodology or idea being touted as best practice. Of course, I also like to share my own discoveries about methodologies that appear particularly helpful; however, the term "best practice" implies that lots of folks agree, and perhaps that there was some for rigor in implementation and review of such and such a practice. As you know, there isn't.
So what to do? Let's start with language. Perhaps we do see a really great thought or method that appears to have at least one champion who has tested it and found it successful. Maybe then this is a new or promising practice or a better practice. And maybe, when lots of folks have seen the idea or method to be truly effective (it works), then maybe that idea can step-up and be an appropriate practice.
Bottom line: language and rigor matters along with new ideas and proof that the new is, well, promising at very minimum. But best?