Latest Posts

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

Helping board members resign with dignity

Board development, Board governance

first 90 daysOn Tuesday of this week, my blog post titled “The executive director’s first 90 days” focused on what the new CEOs and boards should do during those crucial first few months. That post took me for a walk down memory lane to when I was a new executive director embarking on new and exciting challenges.
While it isn’t always the case, sometimes a new executive director finds themselves walking into a challenging situation. After all, there are reasons why people leave their place of employment and those stories aren’t always ideal. In extremely challenging circumstances (e.g. someone ran out the door or they were chased out the door), I guarantee you that the issues don’t just reside with the person who left. There are typically board issues related to the resignation or termination.
For example, in the case of embezzlement . . . you usually can’t just point at the embezzler. There is likely issues with oversight and internal control policies.
One of the best practices I mentioned in Tuesday’s post was that new executive directors should meet individually with every board member within their first 90 days.
One of the more common issues with which many new executive directors are faced (especially when going to work for an agency with little organizational capacity) is having the “wrong people” sitting around the boardroom table. The challenging question many new CEO’s find themselves asking is:

How can we tactfully ask well-intentioned board volunteers
to find a different seat on the bus?

As I reflected back upon my first 90 days (more than 14 years ago), I remembered that my board had 20 volunteers on the day they hired me and within my first three months nine board members resigned.
easy way outNow this didn’t happen because I smelled bad or people disliked me (at least I don’t think so). It happened because of how I approached my individual meetings with board members. Here is what was on my agenda:

  1. Introduce myself and talk about my background
  2. Engage board member in discussion on the “state of the agency“
  3. Ask board member on where they see the agency in 3 to 5 years
  4. Share with the board member where you think you will need their help (e.g. their board roles & responsibilities, their role in fundraising, etc)
  5. Ask them to get more involved and in specific projects

When I had these discussions, those board volunteers, who weren’t a good fit for serving on the board, saw the handwriting on the wall. I didn’t have to tell them to get off the board. A simple, straight-forward conversation centered around expectations and vision was more than enough.
In most situations, it was only a few weeks after our meeting that a resignation letter was inked. Reasons always varied. Here are a few that I remember:

  • Work responsibilities won’t permit commitment of time necessary to serve on the board
  • Not willing/able to commit to fundraising responsibilities
  • Time commitments in personal life (e.g. caring for a sick relative)

In each instance, we celebrated the volunteer’s service. We engaged them in a discussion about finding a different seat on the bus that might be a better fit for them. It was respectful and graceful.
Now this approach isn’t always effective, and sometimes it isn’t appropriate.
For new executive directors, are there other approaches you might suggest with regards to giving good people an easy way off the board? Please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and ideas. We can all learn from each other!
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

How to avoid groupthink in your non-profit boardroom

Board development, Board governance

Kool-Aid, Groupthink and Generative Governance

By Dani Robbins
Re-published with permission from nonprofit evolution blog
groupthink2There have been multiple things that have happened in the past week that have made me re-consider the phrase “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.”
The first was a Board that was exploring introducing a new funding model. The Board, who had been on the inside of a discussion of culture shift for the past year and were familiar with the materials and the arguments, briefly considered not building the organizational culture to introduce the considered change because they “didn’t think it was a big deal.” And it wasn’t a big deal to them because they’d already changed the culture among their group. They’d been thinking about it and reading about it and interviewing other groups that had already implemented the change and there was consensus among the group that it was the right direction for their organization.
Yet… even when there is agreement on the board, there is still the need to create buy-in among others. Without buy-in the potential for failure is high unless all constituents understand the need for change and the foundation is created to implement that change.
The second thing is, in fact, an illustration of just that. The second thing was a local commission’s decision to put forth a levy in the midst of a scandal. They weren’t wrong. They had done their homework, and looked at the issues and put forth a solid plan to introduce change. It failed, primarily and among other things because even though they had a plan to introduce the change and the leaders of the city were behind them, they didn’t have the informal community leaders on board and those leaders didn’t sell it to their constituents.
My intent is not to criticize any of these leaders. Each was in a difficult position and after considering all the options, made the decision that they felt best served their organization, their community and their constituents. That is the very definition of good leadership. Another component of good leadership is to learn from our mistakes and missteps. To that point, we need to ask:

What could have helped? What might have made the difference?

I believe the answer is generative governance. Let’s review how some of the techniques offered in my favorite board book “Governance as Leadership” could have made the difference.
groupthink3“Silent Starts — Set aside 2 minutes for each trustee to anonymously write on an index card the most important question relevant to the issue at hand.”
What if a board or commission member had written: “How can we engage community and committee leaders as well as those in informal leadership positions who could, in turn, engage their constituents?”
“One Minute Memos — At the end of discussions give each member 2-3 minutes to write down any thoughts or questions that were not expressed.”
This could have been a great opportunity to consider the worst case scenarios and create a plan ensure against such eventualities.
“Counter Points — Randomly designate 2-3 trustees to make the powerful counter arguments to initial recommendations.”
This could have been used to dispel all the arguments against the change. From that discussion, marketing materials, talking points and an engagement plan could have been created.
“Role Play — Ask a subset of the Board to assume the perspective of different constituent groups likely to be affected by the decision at hand.”
A board member could have taken on the role of a member of the community who would be the most negatively impacted by the change and a plan could be created to embrace those constituents and mitigate their impact.
“Breakouts — Small groups counter group think and ask: Do we have the right questions?  What values are at stake? How else might this issue be framed?”
This is my favorite of all the techniques offered. It is the best way I’ve seen to get out of your head, out of the room and really consider all the ramifications of the discussion on the table from all the possible perspectives.
Let me be clear. I wasn’t in the room for any of these discussions; these are my assessments from afar. My intent is not to be a Monday morning quarterback. My intent is always to see if there is a lesson to be learned and how a different outcome might have been achieved. Could generative conversations have made the difference?
When it comes to group think and drinking the Kool-Aid, I try to never forget a church sign I once drove past; it said “Don’t believe everything you think.”
What’s your experience with group think and drinking the Kool-Aid? Do you agree that generative governance could be the answer?  How have you mitigated the effects? As always, I welcome your insight, feedback and experience. Please share your ideas or suggestions for blog topics and consider hitting the follow button to enter your email.
A rising tide raises all boats.
dani sig

The executive director's first 90 days

Board governance, leadership

bright eyed bushy tailedBright eyed and bushy-tailed. I love those two descriptions because they perfect describe most newly minted non-profit executive directors. They are eager, optimistic, and ready to change the world when they walk through your agency’s door on their first day of work.
It is at this point that I’ve witnessed many exhausted board volunteers collapse because the first day for the new executive director typically represents the end of a long executive search process. Of course, the reality is that the first 90 days are perhaps some of the most crucial days for the new executive director and the organization.
As I reflect back upon my experience 14-years ago, I now recognize how lucky I was to have been hired by an agency that belonged to a larger national organization (e.g. Boys & Girls Clubs of America). The board simply pointed me in the direction of the regional office, and they signed me up for “New Executive Orientation”. There were pre-training worksheets that walked me through an assortment of activities geared toward hitting the ground running.
But what if your agency doesn’t belong to a national organization? What should your new executive director’s first 90 days look like?
Without getting into a very tactical answer to this question, here are a few big picture activities both the board and the new executive director should look at engaging in:

  • The board needs to develop a written (and measurable) 90 day performance management plan for the new CEO
  • At the end of the first 90 days, the board needs to evaluate their new employee against the written performance management plan and issue another written management plan focused on the remainder of the year
  • The new exec should schedule one-on-one meetings with every board member to talk about the following: 1) where do they currently see the agency and 2) in what direction do they think the agency should be moving
  • The new CEO should be meeting in-person with the agency’s top 25 or top 50 donors to get their perspective on where the agency is and where it should be going
  • The new executive director should meet in-person with each of the agency’s key stakeholders and collaborative partners
  • Back home at the office there is much to do including: 1) reviewing all grants (esp grant deliverables), contracts, audits, recent financial statements, and written organization plan and policy documents including bylaws and 2) getting to know operational staff and learning programs
  • The board needs to plan a party and introduce their new executive director to the community

exhaustedExhausted yet?
Well, these six bullet points are only meant to be a big picture view.
If you are looking for something more tactical and detailed, I ran across a great document online from NAMI titled “The First 90 Days: The New NAMI Executive Director’s Guide“. I think this is a great resource to help new executive directors hit the ground running. It is definitely worth the click.  😉
What has your agency done to help its new executive director hit the ground running? Please use the comment box below and share your thoughts and opinions. Why? Because 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

How do you use RSS?

technology

Is your website donor-centered? If so, then you better offer RSS to users.

By Rose Reinert
Guest blogger
rssOK, Erik is back from baseball Spring Training, today is Opening Day and DonorDreams blog is back. Since it is Monday, we’re looking at Chapter 17 of Lon Safko’s “The Social Media Bible,” which is all about “RSS-Really Simple Syndication Made Simple”.

RSS- or Real Simple Syndication- is a one click solution that allows your readers to subscribe to your content and receive updates the moment you publish it.

Like many topics I’ve covered since Thanksgiving, RSS can again work both ways. You can . . .

  1. add this option to your agency’s website
  2. utilize it yourself to stay up-to-date on a variety of topics including those that are relevant to your sector, agency or mission.

The first step is easy — get an RSS reader. There are several options out there including:

After choosing your RSS reader, you can navigate to the news area of the RSS and add the link from the “Subscribe to RSS” of the site you wish to follow. Then it is set. You can review up to date information as it pulls from those sites.
Pretty simple!
So, one of the first steps is to add the “Subscribe to RSS” icon to your website. Normally, people look for these near your Facebook and Twitter icons.
I am very curious as to how you are using RSS on your site. What are you following using RSS? What benefits do you see to encouraging donors or volunteers to follow you with RSS?
rose draft sig

My humble apologies and non-profit lessons to be learned

Uncategorized

on vacationSome people say that good intentions are really what life is all about. You know what I mean. Those people are the ones who will say that it doesn’t matter what the holiday or birthday gift is . . . all that matters is the intention behind the gift. Then you have those people who say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Who’s right? Who knows!
A week ago, I went into a full out sprint with the contracts I’m currently working because I needed to catch a plane to Mesa, AZ for a father-son vacation at the Chicago Cubs baseball spring training.
I had a lot of really good intentions:

  • I intended to pre-write my blog posts
  • I intended to line up some nice guest blog posts
  • I intended to do what I’ve done over the last three years, which is not miss a beat when it comes to blog posts

Obviously, I failed on all accounts. I ditched last Monday and Tuesday as I tied up loose ends and raced to catch my Wednesday plane. I’ve been in Mesa for the last five days, and couldn’t get back on the horse. Today represented the sixth day that I should’ve published something and just didn’t get it done.
While this will likely sound like an excuse, I think I just reached a point where I needed to relax and go on vacation. Ooops!
Moral to the story
There is nothing wrong in my opinion with taking a break; however,  I believe I owed it to you and the other readers of this blog to explain that I was going dark for a few weeks.
I suspect many non-profit people end up in the same dark place (often called burnout) that I currently find myself. When this happens, it is important to:

  1. Find time (e.g. vacation or time off) for yourself before it becomes acute
  2. Tell those to whom you feel a responsibility that you are taking a little time

My time-off request
Dad and I are still in Mesa watching painful practice games by the Chicago Cubs (ugh. . . they look brutal). When I return from vacation mid-week, I hit the road right away.
So, for those of you who like the daily grind of posts from DonorDreams blog, I owe you an apology. I don’t have it in me to start blogging again until Monday, March 31, 2014.
Sorry!
For those of you who are tired of hearing my babble . . . enjoy the break and vacation.  😉
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

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

Two of the most common non-profit board questions ever asked

Board development, Board governance

How Many Board Members Meeting? How Often?

By Dani Robbins
Re-published with permission from nonprofit evolution blog
boardsize4The two questions I get asked on a regular basis are “What is the right number of board members?” and “How often should our board meet?” The answer to both is the same: whatever it takes. You should have the number of board members you need who meet as often as necessary to get the job done.
While, it’s true, I appreciate that it’s not that helpful.  When I serve as an Exec, my preference is boards of 24 members who meet monthly. I also like a range of board members to be included in the by-laws; 18-30 is my favorite.  For me, it allows the access I need and the number I need to move the agency forward, but doesn’t hold us back if we have an excellent prospect and a full slate. I have primarily run smallish to mid-size social service agencies with budgets from $250k-1.4M, with 3-5 committees, some which had 1-3 sub-committees that allowed non board members to participate. I can see why it’s a lot for board members and also execs…yet, the goal is to meet as often as you need to get the job done.  All of our jobs as leaders is to do what’s best for our agencies.
boardsize3There has been some movement in recent years toward boards meeting less often with committee meetings in between. Some boards meet every other month. Some boards (mine obviously) meet monthly and their committees do as well. Some boards meet quarterly.
I’m not a big fan of quarterly board meetings. They usually require a powerful executive committee to meet in between, which I believe alienates other board members. Powerful executive committees, who have the authority to act in lieu of the full board, take the majority vote and make it minority rule. Let me demonstrate: 24 board members with an executive committee of four officers and five committee chairs need a majority of that group to make decisions. This means that five people, which is 20% of your board, are making the decisions.  If you don’t have committee chairs on the executive committee (and many agencies don’t), you are down to 3 people deciding for the board, just over 10%.
Meeting quarterly also serves to ensure your board members aren’t plugged in enough. They miss one meeting; they miss six months of information. Finally, I am not convinced quarterly meetings are often enough to maintain fiduciary responsibility. Three months later may be too late to get your arms around a budget issue or a program problem.
boardsize2Still, as I stated at the beginning, only you can decide what the best model is for your organization. I offer some questions for you as you consider the right number of meetings:

  • Do you have enough time to complete the work of the board?
  • Are your meetings so rushed that generative and strategic discussions don’t happen, even when included on the agenda?
  • Do your board members feel confident they know what is happening?
  • Is the meeting schedule your board follows forcing, either by choice or need, your executive to do the work of the board?
  • Is your executive missing opportunities because she cannot get board approval?
  • Is your current schedule an effective model for your organization or merely convenient for its members?

The question of Board size is also all over the map. Some agencies have very large boards, which in and of itself becomes a problem to manage; 50 board members is a lot to track, communicate with and engage. Alternatively, some boards are very small and govern enormous agencies with multiple programs operating in a variety of locations. This can lend itself to the executive overstepping her role.
boardsize1Again, only you can decide what the best model is for your organization.  I offer some questions as you consider the right number of members:

  • Is the number of members forcing, either by choice or need, your executive to do the work of the board?
  • Do you have committees of one and, if so, are they effective?
  • Are there committees you cannot introduce or board work you cannot accomplish because of lack of members?
  • Do your members feel so overwhelmed that it is driving disengagement?
  • Do you have a formal board development plan to attract, train, evaluate, recognize and renew board members?
  • Is your current number of members an effective model for your organization?

How many and how often may very well lead to all the other pieces of board development and board engagement falling into place. They’re great questions and great place to start.
How have you answered the questions posed in this post?  How many board members do you have and how often do they meet? As always, I welcome your insight, feedback and experience. Please share your ideas or suggestions. A rising tide raises all boats.
dani sig

Shall we play a game?

Uncategorized

Connecting your agency to online gaming communities

By Rose Reinert
Guest blogger
game1Last week we paused for a recap of how far we have come in Lon Safko’s book “The Social Media Bible.” Chapter 16 digs into a topic that is complete foreign to me, “Gaming the System: Virtual Gaming.” As I dug in to this chapter, I have to say I was struggling with how I could possibly relate virtual gaming to non-profits. So, to get me through this challenge, I will twist it a bit and let’s see what we end up with. Please join me on this journey.  😉
The chapter provides an overview of advertising within MMORPG ( Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game). There have been very successful campaigns, even including advertising by President Barack Obama during his 2008 campaign.
Safko makes a great point in the opportunity that exists for marketing.

Any time you have 50,000 to 8 million people in the same place with the same interests in a trusted network, a business opportunity exists.

I am sure you may be like me that when you think of video games, you think of teenagers, who generally are not our target donors or volunteers. Actually, according to Safko, “. . . only 25 percent of online gamers are teenagers; the average MMORPG player is approximately 26 years old. Fifty percent are employed full-time, 36 percent are married and 22 percent have children.”
Well, this is great! It seems like a great market that any non-profit would want to reach. Right? Of course, the real question is: “At what price?”
With this question in mind, I took the concept of video games and flipped it a bit to see how non-profits could utilize video games for engagement.
There are some simple ways to drive people to your website, and it turns out that games or links are both resources. Below are some examples:
games2The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. The Academy is committed to improving the nation’s health and advancing the profession of dietetics through research, education and advocacy. Their site offers engaging games including “Fad Diet Timeline” and “Nutrition Suduko.”
I dug a little deeper and found  “Games for Change.” Founded in 2004, Games for Change facilitates the creation of social impact games that serve as tools in humanitarian and educational efforts. They work to leverage entertainment for social good. I encourage you to click-through and check out the various games that cover topics from Human Rights to Poverty.
I am so interested in how you have experienced gaming. What are ways that you could utilize this unique way to engage. Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comment box below.
rose draft sig

How does your agency measure its success?

organizational development

Success

By John Greco
Originally published on July 26, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog
emersonHow do you measure success?
To laugh often and much;
To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children;
To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends;
To appreciate beauty;
To find the best in others;
To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, a redeemed social condition, or a job well done;
To know even one other life has breathed easier because you have lived —
This is to have succeeded.
— Ralph Waldo Emerson

I’ve been reading Emerson’s masterpiece for probably over thirty years now.
It has never disappointed.  I don’t think it ever will.  It seems to move with me over the years.
There are some phrases that I connected with right off — to win the respect of intelligent people; to leave the world a bit better by a job well done.
Then there are other phrases that, thirty years later, I’m just starting to get —to appreciate beauty; to leave the world a bit better by a garden patch.
Then there are the other phrases… which make this verse, I think — in addition to being extraordinary — enigmatic.  It is both affirmative, and humbling, at the same time.

We can read those lines, each and every one of us, and think that, yes, we are indeed successful.  It affirms.
And in other ways, we don’t measure up.  It humbles.
Maybe that’s the point.
But there’s more to do.  There’s work to do.  There’s ground to cover.We have done much.  We’re successful.
There are impacts to make.  Probably immeasurable impacts.
How do you measure success?
john greco sig