Category: organizational development

Non-profit unicorns . . . have you seen one lately?

Board governance, Fundraising, organizational development

unicornAs you know, there is no such thing as a unicorn. It is a mythical creature and the inspiration for this morning’s post about various fundraising policies and procedures documents that everyone says are important but rarely exists on the front line of  many (especially smaller) social services non-profit agencies. I thought it might be a good idea to name these “unicorns” and explain what they are and why they’re important.
Before I begin, I want to give a shout out to my BFF — Michael Johnson — who is a planned giving consultant at H. Freeman Associates. He is the real motivation for this morning’s post because he posted the following comment on one of my blogs from last week titled “Your agency’s fundraising program is like an iceberg“:

“Great post, Erik! This speech underscores the importance of having good gift acceptance policies and an operating plan in place to back up our brilliant marketing. We always need to “Begin with the end in mind” and ask ourselves what we will do when our marketing campaign is successful and the prospective donor responds. Otherwise our donors may become frustrated.”

It was Mike’s reference to Gift Acceptance Policies that got my mind whirling and thinking about today’s topic. THANKS, MIKE! 🙂
Gift Acceptance Policies
Sometimes donors like to support your mission with things other than cash. In fact, I just sat through a training a few months ago where my friend Mike talked about how donors give more “stuff” than they do “cash“.
It is for this reason that gift acceptance policies are important. They spell out in advance “what you do and how you do it” with regards to gifts of stuff. In a sample policy that I recently reviewed, an agency included policies and procedures for the following types of donated “stuff“:

  • publicly traded securities
  • securities that aren’t publicly traded
  • real estate
  • tangible personal property like art, jewelry, etc
  • insurnace
  • in-kind gifts and pro bono services
  • deferred gifts (e.g. charitable gift annuities, irrevocable charitable remainder trusts, etc)
  • revocable gifts like bequests

I refer to this policy and procedures document  as a “non-profit unicorn” because I very rarely see it, and when I do it is typically larger non-profits (e.g. universities and hospitals) who have taken the time to develop them.
If you are interested in more info on gift acceptance policies, the National Council of Nonprofits has done a nice job uploading resources and samples to their site. However, please remember that policy making is a a responsibility of the board of directors. So, make sure to include them in the discussion and development of your agencies policies and procedures before asking the board to approve them.
Named Gifts Policy
Sometimes donors like to put their names on stuff, and a Named Gift Policy helps non-profit organizations with the following:

  • identifying what can be and can’t be named (e.g. buildings, rooms, endowments, scholarships, events, etc)
  • identifying the process and rules associated with naming something
  • identifying the process and rules associated with unnaming something

Our friends at the Association of Fundraising Professionals have done a very nice job making the case for why this type of policy is important and providing a number of samples and links to resources. This online article is definitely worth the click!
Again, I consider this a “non-profit unicorn” because I can count on one hand how many times I’ve seen a policy like this.
Donor database policy and procedures manual
Many non-profit organizations have donor databases, and very few of them have put into writing things such as:

  • how to input a pledge
  • how to input a gift
  • how to run solicitor reports
  • protect donor privacy (g. what can be shared and with whom)
  • how to enter donor’s names (g. Mr & Mrs, etc)
  • what information to collect and where to put it
  • how to track soft gifts
  • how to enter a new donor
  • how to track volunteers and prospects

The biggest reason this policy and procedures manual is critical is because your agency won’t always have the same person entering donor information into the database. With turnover comes inconsistency and lost institutional knowledge. Long story short . . . the lack of a policy and procedures manual for your donor database typically results in a G.I.G.O. situation (garbage in, garbage out).
Want to avoid the feeling of wanting to throw your database out the window? I suggest developing your policy and procedures manual.
I know that I sound like a broken record, but I’ve only seen a few of these in all my years of working with non-profit organizations, which is why it is a “unicorn” in my book.
Our friends at Metafile (ResultsPlus donor database) published an awesome nine page white paper that speaks to this issue. Click here to view their sample template.
Does your organization have one of these policies? If so, what was your motivation for creating it? What samples/templates did you use to get started? Are there other “unicorn documents” that you’ve heard about but never seen? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and experiences.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Does your non-profit agency utilize the power of "IF-THEN"

organizational development, Planning

if thenFor those of you following the last few blog posts, you know that I’m reading “The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control“ written by researcher Walter Mischel, which is a book about human behavior, delayed reward and resisting temptation. There are tons of organizational development lessons throughout the book, and there is so much that non-profit organizations can learn from this research.
For example, chapter five — “The Best-Laid Plans” — looks at a concept researchers labeled “hot stimulus” (aka temptation), which is one important factor in the entire delayed reward equation at the root of the marshmallow test. In this chapter, they looked at strategies that children were asked to use in order to improve the amount of time they spent on a project before caving in to a distraction or reward.
One of the strategies that seems to work well is creating “If-Then Plans.” The way this works is when a child is presented with a situation like a foreseeable distraction or temptation, they automatically do something that helps insert their self-control. Here is how Mischel talks about this phenomenon on page 98:

“With practice, the desired action of an implementation plan becomes initiated automatically when the relevant situation cues occur:

  • When the clock hits 5 pm, I will read my textbook;
  • I will start writing the paper the day after Christmas;
  • When the dessert menu is served, I will not order chocolate cake;
  • Whenever the distraction arises, I will ignore it.

And implementation plans work not just when the IF is in the external environment (when the alarm rings, when I enter the bar) but also when the cue is your internal state (when I’m craving something, when I’m bored, when I’m angry).

When I read this chapter, it got me thinking about how powerful IF-THEN planning can be and has been for countless numbers of smart non-profit organizations. The following are just a few examples:

  • IF our executive director resigns or leaves some day, then we will a) hire an interim executive director, b) form an executive search committee, etc.
  • IF our largest funding source cuts or stops funding our agency, then we will cut XYZ from the operating budget and immediately access X% of  funding from our reserve funds and raise Y% of funding from a special appeal to select major gifts donors.
  • IF our capital campaign feasibility study comes back with news that we can raise less than expected, then we will scale the building project back in the following ways:  X, Y, and Z.

Developing IF-THEN plans for your agency on a variety of different issues can help your organization get through tough situations like executive turnover. More importantly, it will help you avoid distracting shiny-object-types-of-issues that are endemic to most crisis situations.
Has your agency developed a succession plan or anything else that qualifies as an “IF-THEN” plan or strategy? Please scroll down and share your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below. I would love to hear about your successes and your lessons learned.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Is your non-profit board more like the grasshopper or ant?

Board development, Board governance, organizational development, Planning

marshmallow1As I explained in last week’s post titled “Should you administer the ‘Marshmallow Test’ to new non-profit board prospects?,” I’ve been traveling a lot lately, which means I’m looking for good books to read at the airport and on the airplane. The newest eBook on my iPad is “The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control“written by researcher Walter Mischel. This book is all about individual human behavior, but I find myself thinking a lot about non-profit organizations while turning the pages.
For example . . . let’s look at Chapter 6 — “Idle Grasshopper and Busy Ants”
I’m sure most of you know Aesop’s fable about the grasshopper and the ant, which is all about the virtue of hard work and planning ahead. Mischel uses this classic story to frame his Marshmallow Test work around immediate rewards versus future rewards and what it tells us about people and their future.
While reading this chapter I couldn’t help but think about non-profit boards and the decisions they make pertaining to saving for a rainy day and building a “rainy day fund“. I’m sure this idea is top of mind for me because a number of my current clients use “number of days cash on hand” as a key performance indicator (KPI) to measure their agency’s financial stability. In fact, right before cracking this chapter of the book, I was visiting with a client who has less than a month of operating cash in the bank, and they are working through ways to grow that number.
Whenever working on issues like “number of days cash on hand,” my thoughts often wander to questions like:

  • Why do some board volunteers make decisions in the non-profit boardroom that they wouldn’t dare make in their own corporate boardroom?
  • Why does building a rainy day fund of 3-, 6- or 12-months feel wrong to so many boards?
  • Why are some non-profit boards so focused on today and less focused on tomorrow?

THEN IT HIT . . . after reading the following sentence on page 61:

“There’s no good reason for anyone to forego the ‘now’ unless there is trust that the ‘later’ will materialize.”

I read this sentence over and over again, and then I wondered the following things:

  • Could this mean that your non-profit board of TODAY doesn’t want to save for a rainy day because they can’t visualize (and don’t trust) the agency’s non-profit board of tomorrow?
  • Could it mean the board doesn’t have faith in their policies, processes, procedures and practices for bringing on the next generation of board members? Will the future board be good stewards of the rainy day fund?
  • Could it mean the board doesn’t have faith in who the next executive director will be and whether or not they will see the rainy day fund as an excuse to relax fundraising efforts?

TRUST

Wow! It is all about trust and the uncertainty of the future. DUH!
Of course, this begs the question: “What can we do TODAY to build trust among board members in what future boards look like and how they will act?”
grasshopper and antI believe the answer is as simple as evaluating what “The Ant” would do if they were a member of your board of directors.
I think The Ant would build a strong Board Governance Committee that would take the following roles/responsibilities very seriously:

  • Board Roles and Responsibilities
  • Board Composition
  • Board Knowledge
  • Board Effectiveness
  • Board Leadership

I think The Ant would invest in development of policies to help guide future boards such as:

  • bylaws
  • investment policies
  • resource development policies
  • board development policies

I also think The Ant would roll policy development into planning projects such as:

  • long-range plan
  • strategic plan
  • board development plan
  • resource development plan
  • succession plan

Reading this chapter also took me back to what I said in last week’s post about administering The Marshmallow Test to prospective new board volunteers. For example, I’m left wondering how many “Ants” versus “Grasshoppers” sit on your board of directors? Does your board governance committee look at this dynamic when conducting its annual gap assessment? Should it? If so, how?
Please scroll down and use the space below to share your thoughts and experiences with regard to the questions I just posed in the previous paragraph. We can all learn from each other.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Should you administer the 'Marshmallow Test' to new non-profit board prospects?

Board development, organizational development

marshmallow testI’ve been on the road a lot lately. When this occurs, I typically look for eBooks to help pass the time during airport delays and other frustrating travel hiccups. Last week, I downloaded The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control. I selected this work of non-fiction because I blogged about it on October 26, 2012 in a post titled “Does your non-profit agency pass ‘The Marshmallow Test’?” It was part of an ongoing series we called “Organizational Development Fridays” at DonorDreams blog, and it was based on OD blog posts at “johnponders ~ about life at work, mostly”.
The Marshmallow Test blog post was one of my favorite posts during that time period. So, when I saw the eBook I knew that I just had to read it.
I suspect the next few DonorDreams posts this month will likely connect back to this book. Today, we are talking about the always elusive idea of what characteristics and traits make-up a productive non-profit board volunteer.
The Marshmallow Test explained
The Marshmallow Test (as it has been dubbed by the media) is an experiment to test self-control in small children. In a nutshell, here is how it works according to Walter Mischel, the book’s author and lead researcher:

“On the table were a desk bell and a plastic tray the size of a dinner plate, with two cookies in one corner of the tray and one in the other corner. Both the immediate and the delayed rewards were left with left with the children, to increase their trust that the treats would materialize if their waited for them as well as to intensify their conflict.”

Here were the rules:

  • The researcher would explain to the child that they had to leave the room for a little while. The child would be left alone with the rewards in plain sight.
  • The child could ring the bell at any time and the researcher would come back immediately.
  • If the child waited until the researcher came back without ringing the bell, then the child would earn the two cookies (aka marshmallows) on the plate in front of them.
  • If the child rang the bell and summoned the researcher back, then they would only earn one cookie.
  • The child had to remain in their seat and not wander off to play in other part of the room.
  • The child was allowed to eat one cookie at any time, but if they did then they forfeited their right to the second cookie.

Researchers observed behavior and timed how long various children took before they rang the bell or caved in and ate a treat.
In subsequent years, researchers have followed up on their research and found that kids who did better on the tests (exercising self-control and opting for the delayed reward) actually did better in life (e.g. income, retirement savings, weight control and health, etc)
Using marshmallows during board recruitment?
Of course, this is a whimsical question. I’m not suggesting you pull out marshmallows and administer the test as part of your agency’s board recruitment process, but the mental image makes me giggle.
However, as I read more and more of the book, I find myself wondering if some of the characteristics and traits of those who practice self-control should be added to our board development prospecting processes.
For example, the following is a list of key board member competencies and characteristics that I recently found included in a sample non-profit board member job description:

  • Has achieved recognition and status within the community.
  • Is knowledgeable about the social concerns of the community.
  • Has the resources (personal and/or corporate) to apply to the needs of the organization.
  • Is committed to youth and the agency’s mission.
  • Has the ability to listen, analyze, and think strategically.
  • Has the ability to work well with others and demonstrates tolerance of differing points of view.
  • Is willing to prepare for and regularly attend board meetings and relevant committee meetings.
  • Exhibits honesty and sensitivity.

In Chapter 8 “The Engine of Success: I Think I Can!” the author ends the chapter with the following list of characteristics and traits of successful people who exercise self-control and maintain an optimistic view of life:

  • pursue goals with persistence
  • develop optimistic expectations for success
  • cope with frustrations, failures and temptations
  • inhibit impulsive responses
  • develop mutually supportive, caring friendships

I couldn’t help but wonder if these characteristics and traits should be added to our prospecting criteria when searching for new non-profit board volunteers?
What criteria does your agency use as part of its board development cycle? How do you assess whether or not a prospect possesses those traits and characteristics? How many of your board volunteers would pass “The Marshmallow Test” if it were administered at the start of your next board meeting? What does that say about your board? 😉
Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and experiences. We can all learn from each other.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Dr. Seuss on the growth of your non-profit organization

organizational development, Planning

growth“I laughed at the Lorax, “You poor stupid guy!
You never can tell what some people will buy!”
Business is business!
And business must grow
regardless of crummies in tummies, you know.
— Written my Dr. Seuss in The Lorax
 

 
You hear it all the time from for-profit business people, “If you’re not growing, then you’re dying.” If you want proof that this is the mantra of the business community, turn on the news or open your newspaper. Oh heck, just Google it and you’ll find more than you can read.
However, isn’t this also the mantra of the non-profit community? In my almost 20 years of experience, it certainly seems to be. The following are just a few things I constantly hear my non-profit clients saying:

  • “Our facility is too small (or too old), and we need to raise money to build a new one to serve more people.”
  • “The state just released a new grant RFP, and we should look at expanding programming if we hope to qualify.“
  • “We don’t have enough board volunteers and need to add more.“
  • “Operating expenses keep rising and we need to add another fundraising campaign or event.“

changesSo, I guess Dr. Seuss is right again . . . “Business is business!” It must just be a function of human nature, right? Because I see corporate America constantly expanding. I see the non-profit sector doing the same thing. And I may just get sick if I hear one more person rant about the expanding size of government on my television (I probably just need to learn how to use my remote and change the channel.)
There is lots and lots of wisdom in Dr. Seuss’ words and there are lots of directions I could go with my blog post this morning, but it is his last sentence that sticks with me.
I don’t know about you, but I believe “crummies in tummies” is an obvious reference to:

  • stress
  • anxiety
  • uncertainty

I think he is saying the idea of growth is a force at work at all times in our organizations, and it is likely a stressor.  While I believe this to be true, I’m choosing to look at this as a clarion call rather than a truism. I think the good doctor is making the case for . . .

PLANNING

In my experience, non-profit organizations who plan for growth don’t have many “crummies in tummies.” And I’m not just talking about developing one plan . . . those organizations have many plans including:

  • Strategic plan
  • Long term plan
  • Business plan
  • Resource development plan
  • Board Development plan
  • Compensation & Benefits Plan
  • Program plan
  • Marketing plan
  • Crisis communications plan
  • Succession plan

planningI know that many people look at this list and immediately reject it, but if Dr. Seuss is right and “Business is business! And business must grow” then change is inevitable inside of our organizations. And if change is inevitable, then why put on a blindfold and take the proverbal steering wheel of your organization?
If this post intrigued you but you’re not sure how or where to start, you might want to check out a few of these resources I recently found online:

Of course, if you are looking for an external consultant and partner to help your agency with facilitating you plan, I know of someone who might be willing to help.  😉
I am feeling whimsical this morning. So, please scroll down and use the comment box below to share what this Dr. Seuss quote inspired you to think about this morning. Your thoughts and experiences are appreciated and will likely help inspire other non-profit professionals and volunteers reading this blog.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Another lesson learned from a donor about relationship building

Fundraising, organizational development, volunteers

On Tuesday of this week, I shared with you a story that a donor had shared with me while walking me down his driveway to my car, and it had to do with a skunk and an incredible moral to the story for all of you workaholic non-profit professionals out there. Today, I am excited to share another short donor story with you about relationship building.
Enjoy!

caricature1Earlier this week, I found myself walking into a title company to interview a donor for a client. As I walked into the office building, I noticed the following things:

  • the employees looked busy
  • there was a sense of purpose in the air
  • there were lots of smiles and people seemed genuinely happy to be doing what they were doing
  • the office was ringed with framed pictures of people drawn in caricature

At first I found the caricature pictures to be out-of-place. I’ve never been in a professional office environment with cartoon pictures everywhere. (By the way, I do mean EVERYWHERE.) However, I quickly realized that these pictures created an atmosphere that permeated the workplace.
When the donor greeted me in his waiting room, I asked: “What’s up with all the caricature pictures? Is it a local hall of fame?”
He explained that the pictures were of local real estate professionals who use the services of his title company to close their property deals. He said that he used to make bobble head dolls of his customers, but that practice got a little bit out of hand. So, they started doing caricature pictures instead.
caricature2I walked away from the conversation thinking this was a unique, fun and quirky business practice. I also came to understand that this business practice was a genius idea on so many different levels:

  • it was obviously a form of recognition
  • it was a practice that allowed the company to express gratitude to their clients for choosing their company
  • it created a fun office culture infecting employees with an attitude that couldn’t help but bring a smile to their faces
  • it served as a constant reminder to everyone that these are the people they work for and the reason they are in business

Throughout the entire interview, I had the theme song from the 1980s television sitcom Cheers — “Where Everyone Knows Your Name” — running through my head. LOL
As the donor walked me to the lobby and the front door, I expressed again my love of his framed caricatures. He graciously accepted the compliment and then summed up his business practice with these few words:

“It’s all about relationships.”

Indeed!
Business is all about relationships and so is your non-profit organization’s fundraising program.
As I walked through the parking lot back to my car, I couldn’t peel the smile off my face. I just love it when a donor touches your heart and teaches — or reminds you of — something.
Driving away to my next donor interview, I made a promise to myself. If I ever find myself back to the front line of a non-profit organization as an executive director or fundraising professional, I am going to incorporate this framed caricature idea in some way, shape or form. Here are just a few of the ideas I came up with for framed caricature picture:

  • distinguishing an employee of the month
  • spotlighting successful clients
  • recognizing board volunteers
  • appreciating donors who join a monthly giving program or donor recognition society
  • identifying great program volunteers

Has a donor ever inspired a new business practice at your agency? If so, what was it? Can you think of other creative ideas on how to incorporate caricature pictures into your workplace that we can add to the list above? Please scroll down and share your thoughts and experiences. We can all learn from each other.  🙂
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847
 

Can you have too many young people on your board? Ummmm, YES!

Board development, organizational development

young professionalsEvery time I hear a donor from a community’s “old guard” lament about no one taking their place and wishing organizations would start recruiting younger, up-and-coming professionals, I can’t help be smile. Why? Because in my experience, it is usually the same crowd who laments that a board of young professionals:

  • lacks fundraising experience
  • doesn’t possess a good network
  • can’t write big checks

This is the classic definition of “You can’t win.” Which begs the question . . . “What should non-profits do about this?”
Obviously, it is in every organization’s best interest to recruit young professionals and the leaders of tomorrow. The following are a few thoughts and suggestions that I’m sharing because I hope it will inspire additional discussion inside your board development/governance committee meetings.
Develop an Associates Board
Many organizations are currently trying to engage young professionals by developing structures like a junior board (aka associates board). If you’re interested in doing something similar, here are a few things I might suggest:

  • Be clear in defining roles & responsibilities by developing a committee charter and written volunteer job descriptions. It is important that your associates board knows that the corporate board is responsible for governance and not them.
  • Make sure the associates board has things to do. No one joins anything nowadays to do nothing. You’ll need activities to engage these individuals.
  • Incorporate networking opportunities into your associates board activities. Young professionals are looking to build their networks, and this will benefit your agency at a later date if they end up joining your board.
  • Design a mentor program where young volunteers are mentored by better connected and influential board members, donors and supporters of your organization. Again, this will only benefit your agency down the road if you ask them to join your board.

Embrace diversity
Not up for creating yet another organizational structure? I hear ya! If this is the case, then embrace the idea of diversity.
Usually, when I see situations like I described in the opening paragraph, it is because an organization went crazy and recruited lots and lots of young people to serve on their board.
It doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing kind of proposition. Be smart about board development by identifying, targeting and recruiting a small handful of up-and-comers in your community.
Baby Boomer volunteers are at the top of their game (e.g. their life, their career, their earning potential, etc) and should compose the majority of your board. However, it would be healthy for your agency in my opinion to fill between 10% and 25% of your boardroom table with GenX and Millennial board members.
When bringing young board members onto a mature board, don’t just throw them to the wolves. Similar to my suggestions in the previous section:

  • establish a mentor program
  • make a point of introducing them to your donors
  • go with them on fundraising calls and teach them how to cultivate, solicit and steward

Is your organization struggling with this young versus old board volunteer dynamic? If so, how are you dealing with it? Do you  have advice for those agency’s who zealously recruited too many GenX and Millennial board members and now suffer criticism from their community’s old guard? We can all learn from each other. Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below.
Here’s to your health!
Erik Anderson
Founder & President, The Healthy Non-Profit LLC
www.thehealthynonprofit.com 
erik@thehealthynonprofit.com
http://twitter.com/#!/eanderson847
http://www.facebook.com/eanderson847
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erikanderson847

Does your agency have a blindspot for accepting things at face value?

organizational development

It Isn’t What It Is

By John Greco
Originally published on August 23, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog
empathyThe regional VP and I would fly into the district office.  We would first meet with the district Director, and then over the course of the next two days the VP, the Director, and I would meet with each station manager in a series of rather intense “three-on-one” station review meetings.
This particular district was once again underperforming; it was the worst district in the region by far.  This district’s meetings were not pleasant for the district Director, and they were not pleasant for most of the managers.
One of those three-on-ones I’ll remember for the rest of my life.
Scott was a young station manager, only a few months into his promotion.  He took over a station that had a reputation for being tough, intractable; and to make matters worse, the previous station manager had transferred out amid accusations of falsifying reports to prop up performance.
Scott was cleaning up the operation; doing so necessitated firing some of the previous front-line managers who simply did not want to play straight.  That meant he was bearing the burden of being understaffed.  And because the performance reporting was now honest, Scott’s operating results were showing rather dismal year-over-year comparisons on many of the key metrics.
If the meeting were today, I’m quite sure he would have explained his situation with a matter of fact “it is what it is” but that phrase wasn’t in popular use back then…
Everybody knew the situation.  The RVP was going to test Scott a bit, but he was not going to go hard at him.
Scott was clearly nervous as he initiated his presentation, but most of the station managers were, so his nervousness wasn’t overly conspicuous.  He was doing a reasonable job explaining his difficult status and his challenging plans.
Until he said something that struck me as not quite right.  It was an innocent, off-hand comment; but, to me, it seemed packed, loaded, heavy.  I wanted to not hear about the numbers anymore.  I wanted Scott to unpack it for me.
I distinctly remember interrupting him, timidly turning to the VP and the Director, and noting that I wanted to ask Scott a question but warning that it might take us off track a bit.  The VP told me to go ahead.
“Scott, can you speak more to why you think the drivers don’t respect you?”
And the floodgates opened.
We never did get back on track.  Scott wasn’t able to finish his presentation.  He broke down; he shared that he had been working 20 hours a day; he was sleeping in his car; his marriage was in trouble; he went on… until we called a time out.
I remember the debrief afterward, and the VP wanting to talk about what we could do for Scott.  I remember the district director at one point turning to me and asking how I knew to stop and ask that question, and how I knew it might lead us to something else entirely, something important.
I didn’t know how I knew.  I just knew.  In fact, I think it was more a feeling than a knowing.  It was one of those times when feeling was knowing.
Empathy.
By me asking that question, Scott knew I knew.  Or at least he knew I knew something.  And it allowed him to release.  He needed to release.  But of course, in a leader, that is weakness…
But it isn’t what it is.
Shortly after that meeting, Scott resigned.  He didn’t see his situation as recoverable.  He may have been right.  But I’m not so sure.  Regardless; we’ll never know.
You might be thinking that this wasn’t exactly a great outcome.  You might point out that this didn’t end well, that we didn’t improve the situation with this approach.  Hard for me to argue with that.
But everyone learned something.  The VP learned that he was under supporting this young leader; he likely wondered how many other young leaders he was under supporting.  That’s a valuable lesson in my book.
The district Director learned that she had an emotional blind spot; she likely wondered what other leader stress across her district was not being recognized and managed.  That’s a valuable lesson, as well.
I learned that I had something to offer that was in short supply in business circles and that I needed to trust my instincts.  And that, without a doubt, was valuable too!
I don’t know what Scott learned.  But I want to believe he learned a lot.
I don’t know where he is now.  I’d like to think that he went on to realize his leadership potential, because he certainly had it; in spades.
It was just too much, too soon, for him.  By all appearances, he was decisive, leading, in control, taking charge.
But sometimes it isn’t what it is.
And, without empathy, we never know.
And thus, we never learn.
And thus, we can’t correct.
john greco sig

Non-profit success depends on failure!?!

organizational development, Planning

A Bias for Failing?

By John Greco
Originally published on August 19, 2013
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog
targetReady, fire, aim.
Measure twice, cut once.

Uh oh.  Wildly conflicting approaches.
What to do?
Measure twice cut once urges us to plan our work before we act.  Plan, and then work the plan.  Check our measurements before we cut.  Don’t vary from the tried-and-true process.  Make sure all i’s are dotted and all t’s crossed.
The implied consequence if we don’t? — wasted time, material, and effort when we have to cut again … and if we don’t have time to cut again?  Poor quality.
This makes very good sense, and I’ll bet resonates with you.
So what then do we make of ready-fire-aim?  What a stark contrast! Take action! then aim?
There’s a couple of ways I make sense of that instruction.
First, I imagine “aim” here is used more to suggest learning.  Take action, and then learn from the result that the action produced.  Self-correct.  Get ready again, and fire again.  And learn again.  Adjust.  Fire again.
Clearly, this approach actually builds in rework.  How is that efficient?
In a very real sense, it’s not.
But, in some cases (and more than we think I would propose) it is moreeffective.
How can that be?
Seems to me that if the task at hand is to converge on a distinct future outcome that is known in advance, say, like building a cabinet, then the carpenter’s measure twice cut once is the right approach.  If we know what we want; we know what we need to do, and we know what we have to work with, we can position our processes and resources, and cut take action with confidence.
The measure twice cut once approach is slow, deliberate, methodical.  Temporary inaction to produce eventual precision action.  It places primary importance on the avoidance of error.  And, therefore, on quality, and efficiency.
All’s good.
But what if things are changing all the time — objectives, policies and processes, technologies, people — and the “measuring twice” approach morphs into constant remeasuring?  Error avoidance can become paralysis … we so fear missing the shot that we don’t ever take the shot …
Time for ready-fire-aim.  And time for my second way of sense-making from those three out-of-order words.
Perhaps ready-fire-aim is not meant to be taken literally.  Perhaps it is only to invoke a certain mindset.
A bias for action.
Take action, learn, adjust; take action, learn, adjust; take action and learn, and adjust, again …
It is an acceptance of the fact that we’re not going to get it right no matter how cautious, deliberate, and planful we are…
There can be no denying that there’s a whole lot of change happening in our lives these days, personally, professionally, in our communities, in our relationships …
Measure twice cut once might need to increasingly give way to ready-fire-aim.  Because the complexity of all that change can become debilitating; immobilizing; stopping us in our tracks.
And I’m thinking that acting is what opens up the possibility of learning; because acting opens up the possibility of failing.
(Now I understand that inaction might be a great strategy given a certain set of conditions, but I’m thinking it is more the exception than the rule…)
Ready-fire-aim urges us to cut through the complexity of change.
Ready-fire-aim suggests we should have a bias for action.
Acting creates opportunities for learning.
From failure; because, clearly, acting in dynamic, changing environments is risky; we risk failing …
Our success will depend on our ability to learn from failing …
We can’t be afraid of that!
We must have a bias for action.
And trust and confidence that we will learn when we fail.
So, in an odd, yet fundamental way … a bias for failing?
john greco sig

How should your agency approach strategic goal setting?

organizational development, Planning

Grasping

By John Greco
Originally published on August 27, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog

vision“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?”

— Robert Browning

I ran across this quote many, many years ago.  It was a curious quote to me back then; I wasn’t sure what to make of it.  I couldn’t quite grasp the meaning.

But, over the years, I’ve made sense of it.  I’ve got it now.  In fact, since I’ve gotten it, I’ve flipped it into something more meaningful, for me, in my work.

I was recently sitting in on an executive session kicking off the strategic planning cycle.  I used the quote as I was making a point in the meeting.  I am not at all sure I should have used it, because when I used it I used my flipped meaning and not the standard, widespread meaning.

(I also doubt that I should have used it because, well, strategic planning meetings aren’t exactly forums for poetry readings… but, alas, I’m always seeking to be impactful when making my points…)

Back to the quote, and the strategic planning meeting.

By most accounts, Robert Browning was talking about the notion of aspirations.  Reach for the stars!  He was advocating for setting challenging goals.

He goes on to note — with an astonishing economy of words — that we should not expect to achieve those lofty goals; but never fear, there’s always the afterlife…

So conversationally it might be no, go for it, just don’t expect to get everything you go for!  Heaven is where we get everything we want… If we accomplish everything we set out to accomplish, what is heaven for then?

Now you might be thinking how in the world that notion would be relevant to share in a business strategic planning meeting. I don’t blame you, I would be thinking that too, if I intended to use that meaning.

But of course my application wasn’t drawing on that meaning.

For me, the crux of the matter is to focus — and work hard — on minimizing the difference between our reach and our grasp.

Now I’m not suggesting we necessarily not reach for the stars.  This to me isn’t an automatic we need to manage our expectations play, although that’s where it could land.  No; for me, it is way more about increasing our capabilities, i.e. improving our grasp.  In more business / OD-speak, it is about tweaking and syncing up the structure, policies, work processes, culture, talent… the plane will fly based on how it’s designed; shouldn’t we redesign when we want it to fly differently?

<sigh>

I really don’t lose my patience that often.  Really, I don’t.  But there are times that test me, and one of those times is when I repeatedly see goals that are set with only perfunctory attention given to investing in building the organizational capability to reach them.

This is a particularly acute hot button because I really can’t stand the predominant result of this — leaders pointing fingers and placing blame at people, and not owning the root cause of the underperformance — insufficient organizational design.

And there’s an insidious reinforcing loop that’s often in play — when we set aggressive targets, but begin falling short because we haven’t redesigned to enable the performance, leaders will react, make short-term decisions to reach the short-term targets (to get those year-end bonuses) but which weaken the organization’s capability and leaders’ decision-making ability to break the cycle and accomplish the longer-term strategic vision…

So there’s this annual business strategy cycle that is my version of Bill Murray’s groundhog day; please, please let me wake up to a new day and a strategic planning process that is different than the last several…

Please don’t misunderstand; the strategic vision should be a stretch, it should challenge the organization to accomplish bigger and better in order to stay strong and competitive.  Because it is the result of strategic thinking, a strategic vision can inspire, and energize. It can motivate to reach.

But strategic visions need to incorporate comprehensive strategic plans that emphasize building the requisite organizational capability.

These plans raise confidence that the strategic vision is realizable.  These plans strengthen our grasp.

What do you think?

But wait, one last thing.  Let’s look one more time at that quote.

Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?

What could that “Ah” mean?

I imagine Browning is saying but consider this or look at it this way …

Ah, indeed.  That’s all I’m asking too…
john greco sig