Tag: leadership

The difference between success and failure

Planning

goalsMany years ago I traveled the Midwest region as an internal consultant working for a large national non-profit organization. For part of my time there, I worked with countless local affiliated organizations on planning and implementing an annual campaign focused on face-to-face solicitation strategy. Some agencies took to it like a duck to water, and others just struggled. Every once in a while (typically when I’m contemplating the origins of the universe), I think back to those days and wonder what the difference was between those two realities.
Whenever I get into one of those “WHY?” moods, I’ve concluded that differences in the following factors must be what made the difference:

  • resource development skill sets
  • state of donor donor readiness
  • board of directors
  • community factors

While I am sure all of these things play a role, I think it might be even more simple.
This morning I was enjoying my coffee and reading a book when I came across the following passages from the book “The Magic of Thinking Big” written by David Schwartz:

“Desire, when harnessed is power.”
“Success required heart and soul effort and you can only put your heart and soul into something you really desire.”
“When you surrender yourself to your desires, when you let yourself become obsessed with a goal, you receive the physical power, energy, and enthusiasm needed to accomplish your goal. But you receive something else, something equally valuable. You receive the ‘automatic instrumentation’ needed to keep you going straight to your objective.”

While I’ve always believed in the power of goal setting, I guess I’ve never seen it in this light or from this perspective.
So, the answer to my original question very likely is simple . . . those who succeeded just desired it more and those that didn’t do well didn’t.
I guess this is why successful fundraising professionals are focused on measurable goals such as:

  • campaign and event contribution goals
  • sponsorship goals
  • grant writing goals
  • donor retention goals
  • new donor acquisition goals

These goals are encapsulated in strategic plans, fundraising plans, stewardship plans, major gift prospect cultivation plans, annual performance plans, etc.
What type of fundraising-related goals does your organization have? Where are those goals written down? How do those goals get translated into your individual goals and where are those written? Were those goals developed collaboratively and do they align with what you’re passionate about? If not, how do you bridge that gap in order to avoid failure?
Please scroll down and 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

A donor learns a lesson from a skunk

Fundraising, volunteers

I’ve been doing lots of interviews with donors recently, and gosh do they some of the darndest things.  🙂   I have two donor stories that I just can’t resist sharing this week (today and Thursday) with DonorDreams blog subscribers.
Enjoy!

 
skunkAs I walk down the driveway of an 80-something-year-old donor, he starts sharing a story with me about a skunk that appeared in his very nice and upscale neighborhood.
One morning while walking down the driveway to get the newspaper for his wife, he observed a skunk walking in circles and making its way down the street towards his house. As the skunk got closer and closer, this donor realized it accidentally had gotten its head stuck in a plastic soda cup, and it was circling and weaving around because it was disoriented and couldn’t see where it was going.
Not knowing what to do, this donor called the police department and asked for help.
As you can probably imagine, neighbors came out of their homes to see what was happening. Additionally, people driving by pulled over to investigate what all the commotion was about.
One of the people who had pulled over, asked the donor what was going on. After explaining the situation to her, she simply asked:

“Why hasn’t anyone here just walked up to the skunk and pulled the cup off of its head?”

Of course, no one had wanted to get sprayed by the skunk, and in the case of our 80-something-year-old donor he didn’t move very well anymore.
Sensing that no one was willing or able to do what was necessary, this lady walked up to the distressed animal, grabbed the cup and shook it gently until it came off of the skunk’s head. No one got sprayed, and the skunk ran for cover under the nearest bush.
With nothing left to look at, everyone went along on their merry way.
Problem solved . . . thanks to one lady who had the courage to step up and do what was obvious to everyone.

 
As I approached the end of the driveway with the donor and the skunk story came to an end, I couldn’t help but ask “Is there a moral to the story?
Which of course there was . . . he simply smiled and said:

“Do what you can do!”

As I drove away, I couldn’t help but smile. This donor had just summed up the entire interview that took me an hour or two to complete in a matter of a few minutes. In fact, he summed up so much more including the mantra for your agency’s:

  • resource development program
  • programming
  • volunteer efforts
  • special projects
  • board engagement

As you organization runs around your community talking about needs and the case for support, there will be lots of people who just stand there looking at you like that skunk. They will be paralyzed and unwilling to step up to do what is obviously necessary.
You need to keep in mind that it isn’t your job to convert these people. That is hard work and likely going to be a waste of time. Instead, it is your job to find the few people who are willing to do what is necessary.
Have you ever walked away from a conversation with a donor with a fun story that invoked an epiphany related to your non-profit work? If so, please use the space below and share it with the rest of the world.
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

Building staff loyalty starts with a good hiring process

Uncategorized

In case you haven’t heard, DonorDreams blog is hosting for the second year in a row the Nonprofit Blog Carnival in the month of May. This year’s theme revolves around building loyalty among various non-profit stakeholder groups such as donors, employees, volunteers, etc. If you are a blogger and looking for the “Call for Submissions,” then click here. The carnival will be posted right here at DonorDreams blog on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. Stay tuned!
In the interest of building momentum, we’ve dedicated the entire month of blog posts to this topic. We’re specifically focusing on what a variety of non-profit organizations are doing (or are looking at doing) to build loyalty.
Today’s blog post is from Nick Jones, who is the Director of Operations at Boys & Girls Clubs of Columbus in Ohio.

Lead a Team; Don’t Manage a Group
Boys & Girls Clubs of Columbus

By Nick Jones
Guest Blogger
bgc columbusMy first days (and those leading up to) as the Director of Operations for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Columbus — an after-school program in Columbus, Ohio — were solely focused on what fun and engaging programs I could implement for the kids.My thoughts were consumed with:

  • Open gym basketball with the teens
  • Arts and crafts with the younger members
  • Interactive homework help session

I was excited about the opportunity to work with kids again, having just taken two years away from the field.
However, as a new manager, I quickly realized my time would not be consumed with facilitating a program for kids, but instead with our staff, who in turn worked directly with the kids.This was a painful realization, as my true passion was in building positive, developmental and long-lasting relationships with young people, especially those who need us most.
It was this realization, though, that was the first step towards building a loyal TEAM of professionals I now believe I have.
bgc columbus1Team vs. Group
Before moving forward, I want to make sure I emphasize the importance of the word, “team.”
In one of my MBA courses, a professor spent almost an entire class differentiating between “team” and a “group.” He explained that a team takes a long time to build. In fact, he said, many groups never develop into teams.
Here are two points I took away from that lecture:

  • A team is willing to praise one another as well as hold each other all accountable (it isn’t just the manager’s responsibility)
  • A team can have confrontations and disagreements among themselves. However, once it’s time to “hit the floor” and perform, everyone needs to be on the same page and drive towards one common goal.

Finding Your People
bgc columbus2The first step I stress to all of my managers in building a loyal team is the importance of the interview process.
During your search you will hire for the attitude you want as part of your team. Most important is making sure there are several levels to your interview process.
In the after-school and youth development sector, with most positions being part-time, we are often faced with the dilemma of being short-staffed and trying to maintain a substantive, safe and fun program for the kids. This, at times, creates “rush hiring,” where it is tempting to fill an open position with a warm body.
Of course, I have seen this fail repeatedly, as many “rushed hires” pass the initial smell test, but later show inadequacies in ability and non-commitment to the organization. This is why it is important to have a multi-layered interview process and allow several management-level staff members play a role in interviewing a candidate.
Your search process should include:

  • pre-screens
  • behavior assessments
  • practical experiences

A thorough interview process will allow you to gain a fairly solid picture of what the applicant could bring to the table as an employee.
I believe most important to this process is conducting behavioral interviews. Why? Because one’s past behavior is the best predictor for future behavior. Interview questions should begin with, “Tell me about a time when . . .”
The interview process is the first step towards developing a supportive and trusting relationship with your employees.
 Acclimatizing Your People
bgc columbus3Once hired, make sure the new employee participates in an immediate on-boarding process and orientation to the organization.

  • Has (s)he reviewed your Employee Handbook?
  • Has (s)he seen her/his official job description?
  • Has (s)he learned about the organization, its history and its values?

It is important during the first couple of weeks to make sure the new employee’s manager spends as much time with them. Slowly acclimatizing her/him to the organization may be hectic, especially when you’re short-staffed, but it will pay off in the long-run.
It is also critical during this time to build a one-on-one relationship with the new employee as well as with the rest of the team.

  • Allow time for the new employee to shadow her/his  new co-workers
  • organize staff get-togethers (outside of work hours)
  • make sure staff meetings incorporate team-building activities

Whatever your process may be, it is most important to remember that consistency, communication and collaboration are all necessary actions for any on-boarding and orientation plan and for building long-term loyalty.
Retaining and Keeping Your Talent
bgc columbus4After the honeymoon phase and the initial adrenaline of starting something new, the “real work” is just beginning for the person managing a new employee. The staff manager has the unenviable job of figuring out how to retain talent and simultaneously build a team.
In my current role, most of my time is focused on staff development and creating a work culture that brings out the best in everyone.
I have tried many different things to engage our staff and make our organization a fun place. One of the first things we did was make sure that all staff had a role in defining our organization’s shared values. This effort was instrumental in establishing the process we now use for making all sorts of strategic and operational decisions.
To create a loyal team, your employees must feel a part of every decision. Employees need to know their voices are heard and valued, and that their ideas are considered.
Additionally, our organization’s managers develop their people through a strengths-based approach.Considerable time, effort and expense is taken to do this, and we’ve been able to learn the areas in which our people have the greatest opportunity for success.
Of course, we also identify areas of development for our people, which is how we focus on ensuring all employees are well-rounded and no one feels like they are being set-up to fail.
Loyalty is built when employees feel like their employer is as invested in their growth as they are invested in achieving the agency’s mission.
Finally, we ensure that our staff leaders operate with what Sean Covey describes as a “cadence of accountability.”
It is a requirement for our leaders to have a minimum of one, dedicated touch-point with each of their employees per week.
Our staff leaders work with their employees on creating a development plan, and the weekly touch-point meetings focus on the employee’s development and success.
Consistency in this regard makes an immeasurable difference in creating a loyal team.
Bringing It Together
shetland sheepdogWhile Boys & Girls Clubs of Columbus allows each of our five programs to have its own identity, we strive for something that we call a “One Club Feel.” This, to me, is the most important part of my job and truest test of my success (or failure) as a leader.
I spend endless hours, days, weeks and months working to solidify a dynamic, diverse group of professionals to lead our programs. Most have come through past professional experiences or by recommendation from trusted colleagues, which makes the goal of establishing a loyal team a lot easier and attainable.
While it is great when my direct reports and program managers possess leadership qualities, frankly it  isn’t enough. The following is a short list of other things I work hard at doing when coaching them on how to coach their team:

  • identifying each leader’s strengths
  • investigating areas for development
  • developing a communication style and leadership style

In addition to coaching, our agency developed common goals and lead measures to which each leader is committed. While each staff leader has different numbers to reach, all leaders have the same goal and lead measures. This allows our management team to speak the same language when planning our staff meetings, staff trainings, and even our staff get-togethers.
Our dedication to coaching and planning helps us build loyalty and trust, which in turn has enabled our organization to grow exponentially over the past four years.
Rarely would I ever try to compare the loyalty of my beloved Shetland Sheepdog — Ollie — to anyone (or anything). However, if there are humans who are in the same loyalty-hemisphere as Ollie, then it’s our team!

 =================================

If you want to learn more about what other non-profit organizations are doing to build loyalty among various stakeholder groups (e.g. donors, employees, volunteers, etc), then tune in here to DonorDreams blog every Tuesday and Thursday throughout the month of May. We will also publish the Nonprofit Blog Carnival on May 28, 2014 with a number of links to other non-profit bloggers who are talking about loyalty related themes.
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

How and when should a non-profit board go into executive session?

Board governance

cone of silenceMore than a decade ago, I attended a BoardSource conference/workshop at Sears’ corporate offices in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. During one of the sessions, the trainer shared her teachable point of view on how often boards should go into executive session, which she explained was at the end of every meeting. I’m dedicating today’s post as a counter-weight to that practice.
If you are intrigued and want to learn more about this teachable point of view, click here to read a post written by Jan Masaoka on Blue Avocado. She does a nice job of making the case.
Of course, there is a flip side to this position.
Let me start by clearly saying . . .  I believe there is a time and place for a board to kick staff out of the boardroom and go into executive session. Here are a few examples:

  • when the board needs to discuss the executive directors compensation package
  • when the board is discussing the findings of an investigation involving the executive director
  • when the board wants to hear directly from the auditor (esp. when there might be financial oversight questions pertaining to staff)

There are a few other good reasons; however, there aren’t many in my opinion.
do not enterAfter attending the BoardSource workshops at Sears as a young and naive executive director, I brought a ton of good ideas back home with me and shared them with the Board Development Committee. One of those ideas was for the board to go into executive session as a regular practice at the end of every meeting.
At first, I found this practice preferable. It sure as heck was better than watching all of the informal “meetings after the meeting” that occurred in the parking lot. However, as time passed, I discovered that executive session had evolved, and board volunteers were now having discussions that I should be a part of.
Prior to implementing this practice, we didn’t have a discussion about what was appropriate versus inappropriate topics of discussion during the executive session time period. So, without an experienced facilitator or any rules of the road, conversations wandered and devolved.
In my experience, the “going into executive session as a regular practice” became demoralizing. If the board didn’t feel comfortable including me in discussions pertaining to or impacting operations, then they needed to fire their executive director.
If your organization is looking at adopting the “going into executive session as a regular practice,” then here are two things you need to weigh against each other:

  • Is it more important to foster what the Blue Avocado post describes as: “This ‘sense of self’ is an intangible yet critical underpinning for board leadership“?
  • Or is it more important for your agency to cultivate and grow the ‘sense of team‘ between the board and its executive director?

I suspect the answer to these questions will vary for different organization. However, it is important to answer these questions before implementing such a policy. Otherwise, your agency may find itself the victim of the “law of unintended consequences“.
If you want to read more on the subject of executive sessions, here are a few posts you may find interesting:

What is your agency’s practice when it comes to executive session? Has your board governance committee discussed and spelled out when this practice should be used and what is appropriate? If so, please share your thoughts and opinions in the space below. 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

Are you managing your non-profit staff or are you leading them?

Uncategorized

It Does Not Follow

By John Greco
Originally published on September 3, 2012
Re-posted with permission from johnponders blog
leadership“You don’t manage people; you manage things.  You lead people.”
— Admiral Grace Hopper

A while back I recall being on a regional conference call with the VP, his regional staff, and his district directors.  The topic of the day was how to increase the productivity of the delivery drivers.  The region’s labor costs were over budget, and driver wages were the lion’s share of the variable expenses.  So they needed to get faster…
I was getting increasingly frustrated with the conversation.  I was hearing nothing but quick fixes; I now call them fixes that fail because they ultimately make things worse after making things temporarily better.  I kept hearing these simplistic directives that implied a measure of control that was, well, in my calculus, ridiculous.
I remember thinking to myself if they have such control, why are we having this conversation?  If they are in control, end of story, no?  Just tell them to work faster, no?
I think I said something to this effect on the call.  But it’s possible my memory is playing tricks on me.

*     *     *     *     *

Performance management is a non sequitur.

The origin of non sequitur, from latin, translates “it does not follow.”  When I hear management being practiced in terms of control and authority, coercion and force, I cringe.
Performance does not follow.
People, unlike things, feel and think!

  • They assess.
  • They ascertain.
  • They consider.
  • They project.
  • They imagine.
  • They analyze.
  • They calculate
  • They judge.

And, ultimately, they choose.
Management control is a myth.
When managed, people will — at best — comply.  Which means they are simply making the choice to accept your authority, and they are choosing to behave within the lines that you have drawn.
Things, on the other hand, don’t feel and think.  They can be managed!  Goals, processes, procedures, tools, resources, budgets, reports, timeframes, work flows, measurements …
Leaders manage things; and they lead people by influencing.
Influencing requires an understanding that control is a myth.  It requires an awareness that people have choices and make choices.  Influencing also requires leaders to trust that their people really do have the capacity to engage and make the choices that are necessary for the high functioning of the organization in its pursuit of its mission.
Manage things; lead (influence) people.
For now, let’s grossly summarize leading as providing a meaningful business aspiration; communicating clear and timely information regarding the who/what /when/where/how, involving them when problem solving and implementing change, and supporting them with sufficient tools, technologies, and other resources.

*     *     *     *     *

That conference call ended as most do; action items with little leverage.  But the VP was slowly clarifying his philosophy.  It was a work-in-progress for sure, especially in terms of its execution, but I remember its five parts distinctly —

  1. Grow the business.
  2. Serve the customers.
  3. Lead the people.
  4. Manage the numbers.
  5. Support the community.

People follow when leaders lead.
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 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

Having difficult conversations with board, staff and donors

Uncategorized

difficult conversations2From time-to-time, we all need to have a difficult conversation with someone. It could be an employee, board volunteer, donor, collaborative partner, or even a spouse or loved-one. I was in such a position a few days ago, and needless to say it didn’t go very well. In the subsequent days, I spent a lot of time licking my wounds and thinking about what I could’ve done differently. So, I’ve decided to share some of my thoughts with the readers at DonorDreams blog and hope you’ll also share your thoughts and experiences.
Setting the stage
Let’s make sure we’re on the same page. The following are just a few examples of difficult conversations I see non-profit professionals having every day:

  • correcting poor performance or disciplinary action with an employee
  • engaging a board member in a discussion about poor attendance at meetings or following through on things they’ve committed to do for the agency
  • speaking with a donor who spontaneously donated — before your fundraising volunteers could schedule an appointment to visit — and made a contribution of less than what you were planning to ask them to give
  • talking with a funder about a set of grant deliverables that your agency agreed to achieve but might now be having difficulty achieving

I’m sure we could identify many more of these types of conversations without even trying very hard. Won’t you please share?
What not to do
As I look back upon the many difficult conversations I’ve had in my professional life, I’ve made many mistakes and some of those mistakes I continue to make over and over again for some dumb reason. Here are just a few of those missteps:

  • I procrastinate and put off having those conversations
  • I obsess and over-think those conversations, essentially having different version of those conversations in my head prior to the actual conversation
  • I try to set the stage with a pre-discussion email outlining the issues that need to be discussed
  • I get emotional and take things personally
  • I wear my emotions on my sleeve
  • I get entrenched in my opinions and don’t leave any room for alternate viewpoints

I could also go on and on with developing this list of mistakes. I’ve made so many of them throughout the years. I know you probably have a few things to add here. Won’t you please share?

Best practices
difficult conversations1I’ve done some research into how I can do better in the future with engaging others in these type of conversations. Here are just a few of the best practices that resonate with me:

  • Don’t have this conversation in your head before having it in-person because over-thinking creates anxiety and frames issues that might not even come up
  • Stay away from email because people read tone into written communications that you may not intend . . . but perception is reality
  • Go into the discussion prepared to: a) hear the other person and b) possibly change your mind
  • Encourage questions to promote understanding
  • Restate what you hear the other person saying in order to make sure you’re hearing them correctly

As with the previous section of this post, I know there are many more best practices. Won’t you please share your best practices?
Resources
When you Google the search words “having difficult conversations,” there are a ton of great resources. Here are just a few that I’ve found helpful:

Without sharing the ugly details about one of your difficult conversations, please use the comment box below to share your thoughts and experiences. Share resources that you’ve found useful. Share things that you’ve learned not to do. Share things that you always try to do. Life is too short . . . 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