During my career, I've often seen new bosses come into the workplace. It was always an opportunity to advance both my career and my agenda for the organization.
Sometimes the boss was several levels above me, as was the case when I worked at the Community Service Society of New York. David Jones became the CEO and Steven Krause the COO. My boss, Josephine Nieves, reported directly to both of them, and I reported to her. I often accompanied Josie to meetings with one or both of them, and was impressed by the amount of preparation she did for each meeting. Usually, we got the outcome we desired! More than that, I gave thought to how I wanted them to perceive me - as capable, responsive, intelligent, results-oriented, and strategic. I demonstrated this through my behavior in meetings as well as through my follow-up - and as a result have good relationships with both David and Steven to this day.
At City Harvest, I had many new direct bosses. These included several different Chairmen of the Board of Directors, as well as incoming Board members. I always met privately with each of them, and spent a lot of time strategizing before each meeting about what outcome I sought. I strategized with my coach and usually with at least one of my senior leadership team members. At each of these first meetings, I established the groundwork effective working relationships with each Board member and Chair. How effective? The proof is in the results. By building those relationships, I led City Harvest to its phenomenal growth in services, funding, and visibility.
I was reminded today of how important it is to be strategic about first meetings with any new boss, when I talked with an up-and-coming faculty member at a university where there are two new Deans in Departments with which he is affiliated. He wants to meet with each of them and wondered if it was appropriate. I thought yes, as long as he has a purpose for the meetings, and as long as he tells his direct boss that he plans to have the meetings and when they are scheduled. (This relates to the "no surprises" rule - one should never surprise or embarrass one's immediate supervisor especially with any of their superiors.)
In response to a question, he admitted he hadn't yet thought through what he wants out of the meetings. Certainly, he wants them to know who he is. The question is "why?" We spent a good half hour talking about that topic at the end of which he felt much more prepared. This is what I suggested:
In setting up a meeting with a new boss - either your own or one higher up the food chain - it's best to ask some key questions.
First: What's the purpose of the meeting? There has to be a clear reason to request a meeting, as well as a well-articulated agenda. Otherwise, the meeting will waste everyone's time. And you don't want to waste a boss's time; it just annoys him or her and casts you in a bad light. Having a clear purpose makes it easier to get a meeting in the first place, particularly if the new boss has an Executive Assistant as "keeper of the calendar," aka gatekeeper.
Setting a goal is the first step toward developing a plan to actually get there. the purpose could be "getting to know you," it could be to raise some topics, or some combination of the two (as in my friend's case).
From these purposes flow additional questions.
Getting to know you:
1. Why do you want the boss to know who you are?
2. What do you want the boss to know about you?
3. How can you present yourself in a way that will help you meet those goals?
Raising specific topics:
1. How does this help him/her? For example, does s/he just need to know as background, or is it possibly a way for them to reach a strategic goal they already have expressed? Do some homework to find out what the new boss wants to accomplish - talk to other people who have already had meetings, attend any public functions, read the announcement about their appointment, etc.
2. How could this help you? Think through what benefit you could get by raising the topic, as well as the potential consequences of not raising it. Also, make sure it won't hurt you to raise the topic at this point in time. Maybe you need to lay more groundwork or do some more homework.
3. What’s the desired outcome? The outcome can be simply for the meeting itself (e.g. now she knows I'm involved in this project) and longer-term (e.g. now this will become a priority for him, and resources will flow to it). Ask also what materials you need to bring with you or provide beforehand in order to better ensure your desired outcome.
4. What do you want the new boss to do, if anything? Clearly articulate exactly what you will ask, why they should say "yes," how you will ask it, and what you will do if they say "yes" - or "no." Think it through - what then will you need to do in response? What back-up materials must you develop and provide?
5. Are there any next steps after this meeting? For example, do you want to promise that you will do something? Do you want another meeting? Are there other people who need to be involved? What do you need to tell your boss?
In general, it's better to over-prepare for a meeting with a new boss than under-prepare. All that preparation will be put to good use sometime down the line, even if it's not used in the initial meeting. If nothing else, you'll feel more confident walking through the door for that initial meeting.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Fun and Work
As I browsed around the Chief Executive website, I discovered a quote from Kenneth D. Makovsky's* blog about fun and work being completely interrelated.
I was thrilled to see that 98% of CEO's would prefer to hire someone with a sense of humor! That was my opinion when I led City Harvest. Far better to hire someone who takes themselves lightly and the work seriously than someone who takes both seriously or both lightly.
Someone who takes themselves lightly - who can see the ridiculousness of a situation, who can take and make a joke (not at anyone's expense, of course), and who can loosen up and play or celebrate or let off steam after the hard work is done - that's the kind of person I want to be, and I want to be around.
I also wanted to be surrounded by people who took work seriously in the sense that they had passion for what they did, that they took pride in doing a great job, and that they were committed to delivering excellence.
Seriousness could be taken too far, however, if that person couldn't detach from the work long enough to share a laugh around the worktable with their colleagues.
When I interviewed people for senior leadership positions, I always made a point of cracking a joke or using a pun - just to see if the person would join in laughing. If she or he did, s/he got to the next round - assuming all other signs were good. Then I'd have a team of people interview him/her, and I'd sit in to observe.
The people I ended up hiring were the ones who almost immediately had good rapport with their prospective colleagues. And that good rapport was demonstrated by laughter.
Laughter showed that people were comfortable with each other, that they had a similar view of life and work. It also showed that the prospective team member was capable of quickly blending in with the rest of the senior leadership team. That meant s/he would be able to get up to speed fast and soon develop collaborative relationships.
Speed was really important because City Harvest was a fast-paced organization. And it was equally important that we like each other enough to spend 8 to 14 hours a day together (with bathroom breaks, of course). If we could laugh together, we could work effectively together and create great success and value for our clients, the hungry of New York City.
* President of Makovsky + Company, one of the largest global independent public relations firms in the U.S.
I was thrilled to see that 98% of CEO's would prefer to hire someone with a sense of humor! That was my opinion when I led City Harvest. Far better to hire someone who takes themselves lightly and the work seriously than someone who takes both seriously or both lightly.
Someone who takes themselves lightly - who can see the ridiculousness of a situation, who can take and make a joke (not at anyone's expense, of course), and who can loosen up and play or celebrate or let off steam after the hard work is done - that's the kind of person I want to be, and I want to be around.
I also wanted to be surrounded by people who took work seriously in the sense that they had passion for what they did, that they took pride in doing a great job, and that they were committed to delivering excellence.
Seriousness could be taken too far, however, if that person couldn't detach from the work long enough to share a laugh around the worktable with their colleagues.
When I interviewed people for senior leadership positions, I always made a point of cracking a joke or using a pun - just to see if the person would join in laughing. If she or he did, s/he got to the next round - assuming all other signs were good. Then I'd have a team of people interview him/her, and I'd sit in to observe.
The people I ended up hiring were the ones who almost immediately had good rapport with their prospective colleagues. And that good rapport was demonstrated by laughter.
Laughter showed that people were comfortable with each other, that they had a similar view of life and work. It also showed that the prospective team member was capable of quickly blending in with the rest of the senior leadership team. That meant s/he would be able to get up to speed fast and soon develop collaborative relationships.
Speed was really important because City Harvest was a fast-paced organization. And it was equally important that we like each other enough to spend 8 to 14 hours a day together (with bathroom breaks, of course). If we could laugh together, we could work effectively together and create great success and value for our clients, the hungry of New York City.
* President of Makovsky + Company, one of the largest global independent public relations firms in the U.S.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Using the Must Have List
When most people answer the questions on the Must Have List, they end up with a lot of information or data on themselves. The next step is to make that data usable and useful. This means creating a "short form" Must Have List.
The "short form" consists of 5 or 6 words or phrases that capture the essence of what you are searching for in a job. For example, you might distill everything down to:
1) Type of work: Multi-focus
2) Role you will play: Team leader
3) Impact of your efforts: Helps children
4) Physical environment: Well-lit, professional
5) Colleagues, culture, emotional environment: Supportive/respectful
6) Compensation: Minimum $90K plus full benefits
This is the guide against which you assess potential jobs. It also is the basis for forming your intention for the job you want.
When networking, you'll need an "elevator speech" - the 2-3 sentence summary of what you're looking for in your job search. That's your intention. It's the introduction that will precede your saying "I'd like your advice. Would it be possible for me to have 20 minutes of your time?"
Your job is to help people help you by giving them clues to how they can help you and where they can start looking in their mental file cabinet (and then their rolodex/contact list). You'll do this via your intention. Something too amorphous is frustrating because then the person you're meeting with doesn't really know how to help you.
It will be useful for you to say things like "I really thrive on managing multiple projects and leading a team of people to achieve our goals. And I'm very interested in helping children. What kind of jobs do you think I might be qualified for?" Or "I'm looking for work that will allow me to use my talent for leading people, managing diverse projects, and reaching goals. I'm passionate about helping children, especially to get a good start in life through education, good nutrition, or great parenting. Who do you know that I might talk to about potential opportunities in that area?"
This gives people the idea that you actually have done some research and gives them a specific handle to grasp onto. Their minds then automatically go to the people they know in those fields to whom they can connect you. That's how you continue gathering information (I call it "Information Networking") and continually narrowing your focus until you zero in on the jobs that really excite and interest you.
Obviously, your intention will continue forming as you gather more information about the types of jobs and industries in which you're interested and for which you're qualified (in terms of your skills and experience). However, for the information-gathering stage, it's really great to form an intention based mainly on the skills and talents you have instead of simply the specific job you seek, because it keeps you open to many different kinds of jobs and allows you to network around skills/talents more than job/industry.
The "short form" consists of 5 or 6 words or phrases that capture the essence of what you are searching for in a job. For example, you might distill everything down to:
1) Type of work: Multi-focus
2) Role you will play: Team leader
3) Impact of your efforts: Helps children
4) Physical environment: Well-lit, professional
5) Colleagues, culture, emotional environment: Supportive/respectful
6) Compensation: Minimum $90K plus full benefits
This is the guide against which you assess potential jobs. It also is the basis for forming your intention for the job you want.
When networking, you'll need an "elevator speech" - the 2-3 sentence summary of what you're looking for in your job search. That's your intention. It's the introduction that will precede your saying "I'd like your advice. Would it be possible for me to have 20 minutes of your time?"
Your job is to help people help you by giving them clues to how they can help you and where they can start looking in their mental file cabinet (and then their rolodex/contact list). You'll do this via your intention. Something too amorphous is frustrating because then the person you're meeting with doesn't really know how to help you.
It will be useful for you to say things like "I really thrive on managing multiple projects and leading a team of people to achieve our goals. And I'm very interested in helping children. What kind of jobs do you think I might be qualified for?" Or "I'm looking for work that will allow me to use my talent for leading people, managing diverse projects, and reaching goals. I'm passionate about helping children, especially to get a good start in life through education, good nutrition, or great parenting. Who do you know that I might talk to about potential opportunities in that area?"
This gives people the idea that you actually have done some research and gives them a specific handle to grasp onto. Their minds then automatically go to the people they know in those fields to whom they can connect you. That's how you continue gathering information (I call it "Information Networking") and continually narrowing your focus until you zero in on the jobs that really excite and interest you.
Obviously, your intention will continue forming as you gather more information about the types of jobs and industries in which you're interested and for which you're qualified (in terms of your skills and experience). However, for the information-gathering stage, it's really great to form an intention based mainly on the skills and talents you have instead of simply the specific job you seek, because it keeps you open to many different kinds of jobs and allows you to network around skills/talents more than job/industry.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Types of Non-Profit Board Members
In the field of non-profit Board development, the hoariest of old saws is that Board members must possess three W's - Wealth, Wisdom, and Wit. I've also heard and said that non-profit Board members need to bring one or more of these things: money, contacts, clout, and expertise - and in that order. Here's my unofficial ranking of Board members, based on my many years working with Boards and many conversations with colleagues.
The best Board members give and get significant sums of money to fill the organization's coffers and cover payroll and other costs of delivering our very- needed services. It's even better if they ask few questions and generally support staff efforts. That is becoming a rarer occurrence, especially with the growing population of social venture capitalists, venture philanthropists, and other emigres from management firms, investment banks and private equity firms convinced they have the appropriate tools and outlook to make charity efficient and hopefully also effective. The more money you give or the more corporate/capitalist experience you have, the more right you have to second guess staff and question process and decisions. Smart ED's understand and expect that - as do their fellow Board members.
Next-best Board members use their clout and connections to get donations of goods and services, things for which we'd have to pay cash otherwise. These Board members are next-best because staff have no choice as to what resources they provide; we must take what we are given whether it meets all the organization's needs or not - and we must be grateful for it.
Further down the scale, we have Board members who know influential people and are willing to lobby on the organization's behalf for some kind of advantage. Hopefully, the advantage is pecuniary but political is acceptable. While it's good to have such a Board member, it's just good - not great. Why? Staff can often develop better relationships and there's always the possibility of hiring a lobbying firm that has the best relationships of all.
Last on the scale are Board members who actually know something about the issue the organization works on - unless they also have money, contacts and clout. You'd think it would be an advantage to have a knowledgeable person on the Board. Wouldn't they be able to offer so much to the staff? Well, yes, and therein can lie the problem. These Board members may have opinions about how the organization should be run that run counter to the instincts and talents of the ED and senior leadership.
If those Board members are indeed wise, they can be hands-off advisors and thought partners for the ED, as well as effective advocates for staff with the Board. That's in the best of all possible worlds. In that case, these are the very best Board members. Sadly, unless they are founders, such Board members are often "retired" from the Board after their service is up, especially as an organization grows in scope, visibility and prestige.
The best Board members give and get significant sums of money to fill the organization's coffers and cover payroll and other costs of delivering our very- needed services. It's even better if they ask few questions and generally support staff efforts. That is becoming a rarer occurrence, especially with the growing population of social venture capitalists, venture philanthropists, and other emigres from management firms, investment banks and private equity firms convinced they have the appropriate tools and outlook to make charity efficient and hopefully also effective. The more money you give or the more corporate/capitalist experience you have, the more right you have to second guess staff and question process and decisions. Smart ED's understand and expect that - as do their fellow Board members.
Next-best Board members use their clout and connections to get donations of goods and services, things for which we'd have to pay cash otherwise. These Board members are next-best because staff have no choice as to what resources they provide; we must take what we are given whether it meets all the organization's needs or not - and we must be grateful for it.
Further down the scale, we have Board members who know influential people and are willing to lobby on the organization's behalf for some kind of advantage. Hopefully, the advantage is pecuniary but political is acceptable. While it's good to have such a Board member, it's just good - not great. Why? Staff can often develop better relationships and there's always the possibility of hiring a lobbying firm that has the best relationships of all.
Last on the scale are Board members who actually know something about the issue the organization works on - unless they also have money, contacts and clout. You'd think it would be an advantage to have a knowledgeable person on the Board. Wouldn't they be able to offer so much to the staff? Well, yes, and therein can lie the problem. These Board members may have opinions about how the organization should be run that run counter to the instincts and talents of the ED and senior leadership.
If those Board members are indeed wise, they can be hands-off advisors and thought partners for the ED, as well as effective advocates for staff with the Board. That's in the best of all possible worlds. In that case, these are the very best Board members. Sadly, unless they are founders, such Board members are often "retired" from the Board after their service is up, especially as an organization grows in scope, visibility and prestige.
Non-Profit Boards of Directors and Executive Directors
Recently, I've talked with someone seeking to become an Executive Director of a non-profit organization. He's terrifically qualified and I'm sure would be great leader for a mid- to large-size organization. The only area in which he lacks experience is working with a Board of Directors. And, while not insurmountable, that is a significant gap.
While nothing beats personal experience, I've shared with him my own learning about how Boards operate to give him a leg up on other candidates. Here are some key takeaways from my 20+ years working with Boards:
1) The Executive Director has a completely different relationship with the Board than do any senior staff, and nothing prepares you for it.
Prior to joining City Harvest as its Executive Director in 1994, I worked with Board committees and Board members, as well as serving on Boards and helping form them. Certainly, those experiences gave me some awareness of how to work with these elite volunteers. Honestly, however, nothing could have prepared me for what it was like being an Executive Director. There's simply no other role quite like it.
All of a sudden, the buck completely stopped with me - which was a given, except that there were 27 people with different standards and desired outcomes. Which "buck" mattered the most? Who wielded the most power? How much should I tell the others about one or another Board members requests? Did I really have to deal with each individual concern, issue, complaint, idea, inspiration, request?
The answer to the last question was "YES!"
And the other questions? Gradually, I learned that the Board as a whole and members individually had no idea what the answers were or should be. Part of my job was to work out the answers to the other ones, using every tool in the book to enlist the cooperation of the Board as a whole.
I relied on my staff, I relied on colleagues in similar positions, and I talked often to my father who served as co-CEO of the American Bible Society and then as CEO (aka General Secretary) of the United Bible Societies. All provided me with invaluable information, suggestions, support, and venting space. Yet, at the end of the day, I carried on my shoulders the entire burden of managing the Board.
From the perspective of managerial effectiveness, I wanted it that way. Many staff carrying multiple messages would only confuse things. Yes, staff could interact with and help the Board - only with my full knowledge and agreement and consent.
Sad to say, I needed to be the chief liaison with the Board from a political perspective, in order to maintain my position as ED. I had reached the top of the non-profit heap and was a great target for someone who wanted to have my position, visibility, influence, and power. And, as I found to my chagrin, there is no better way for someone to oust an incumbent ED than by working behind the scenes with one or more ambitious Board member who seeks the pinnacle of volunteering: being Chairman of the Board of a prestigious non-profit organization. I told him that I believe I was no longer at City Harvest because, while recuperating from a hip replacement, I was out of regular touch with the Board. While other things may have contributed to my ouster, I am convinced that the KOD (kiss of death) was my lack of regular contact with and hands-on management of the Board.
That leads nicely to my next lesson.
2) The “care and feeding of the Board” is at least 50% of an ED's job.
My colleague estimated he would need to spend 25 to 40% of his time focused on the Board. Au contraire, I said. I could never have handled my Board responsibilities if I spent less than 50% of my time with them. That was the experience of my father and other colleagues. Few outsiders believe that this is necessary. I'm here to say that EDs listen to these outsiders at our own peril.
I remember telling the then-Chairman of City Harvest's Board about that rule of thumb and his thinking that a ridiculous amount of time. He told me not to spend so much time on the Board - he wanted the organization to get more of my attention. Fortunately, I was pretty seasoned by this time and completely ignored his request. He didn't get that, by working with Board members individually and as a whole, I was giving the organization my full attention. (Years later, he acknowledged that he now knew better.)
The reality is that an ED must spend a lot of time developing relationships with every Board member and each Board Committee and the Board as a whole, in order to achieve any agreement and forward movement on the organization's agenda. I can't fathom how I would have gotten approval for one Action Plan and two Strategic Plans if I hadn't invested major time and thought into "working the Board" - all 17 to 33 (or more) Board members. I talked, asked questions, listened, pleaded, flattered, cajoled, "talked turkey," made alliances, courted, appealed to ego and ambition, flirted, involved, confided in, strategized, meditated, dreamed, vented, cried, cheered, invited, thanked, and more – anything I could think of to do, I did. All of it was in order to find out what various Board members thought, wanted, feared, hated, liked, desired, and needed. Then I took that information and put it through my own mental sieve. Only then was I ready to work with my senior staff to devise the processes, strategies and scripts that would yield Board consensus and forward movement for the organization.
And that leads to the third lesson.
3) Board members spend 90% of their time elsewhere and 10% on their Board membership, if we’re lucky.
The reasons for this are obvious: Board members have occupations and lives that fill their minds and calendars. We want people on our Boards who have money, contacts, clout and hopefully good sense. If we have to sacrifice anything, it's the good sense - because we need their money, contacts and clout to make the organization's work possible.
The consequences of the 90/10 rule are so far-reaching, I can only name a couple here. I emphasize that understanding the cause of these consequences is key to reducing and even eliminating the frustration experienced almost universally by staff leaders.
The most pervasive symptom of the 90/10 rule is that Board members seem to "check their brains at the door" of the Board room. It can seem that Board members forget almost all they knew from one meeting to another, and that they never read the materials painstakingly prepared by staff. Optimally, Board members will read materials before the meeting. Assuming they will not is a far better rule of thumb. Board members are busy, their time filled with other priorities. Generally, the time they set aside to attend a Board meeting is all the time they can spare for the non-profit. So it behooves the ED to prepare crisp, bullet-pointed written reports and then present short, purposeful verbal reports at the Board meeting.
The wise ED will talk before the meeting with as many Board members as possible, to lay the groundwork for any discussion and decision that will occur. If there is little time to spend talking with individual Board members, the ED needs to focus on the most influential - or consider postponing the topic until a later time and then spend as much time as needed to educate Board members and allay concerns before the next meeting. A Board meeting is no time for surprises for the ED.
Another consequence of the 90/10 rule is that any one Board member who does spend a lot of time volunteering or working with staff will have an inordinate amount of power and sway within the Board. Often, other Board members will think: “well, s/he spends so much time on it, he must know what’s going on, so I’ll listen to him…” In the meetings, other Board members will often defer to this Board member, making sure to solicit his or her opinion before any decision. The smart ED quickly makes an ally of this Board member.
Founders often fall into this category. Regardless of the amount of money they give and/or get, founders usually receive great respect and deference from all other Board members. If the founder does not like the ED, it does not matter how well the ED does her/his job technically. That ED is not long for his or her job - a lesson I learned at New York Restoration Project.
In sum, Board management can make staff management look and feel simple. However, bearing all these things in mind, an Executive Director can be more successful at the job of managing a Board of Directors.
While nothing beats personal experience, I've shared with him my own learning about how Boards operate to give him a leg up on other candidates. Here are some key takeaways from my 20+ years working with Boards:
1) The Executive Director has a completely different relationship with the Board than do any senior staff, and nothing prepares you for it.
Prior to joining City Harvest as its Executive Director in 1994, I worked with Board committees and Board members, as well as serving on Boards and helping form them. Certainly, those experiences gave me some awareness of how to work with these elite volunteers. Honestly, however, nothing could have prepared me for what it was like being an Executive Director. There's simply no other role quite like it.
All of a sudden, the buck completely stopped with me - which was a given, except that there were 27 people with different standards and desired outcomes. Which "buck" mattered the most? Who wielded the most power? How much should I tell the others about one or another Board members requests? Did I really have to deal with each individual concern, issue, complaint, idea, inspiration, request?
The answer to the last question was "YES!"
And the other questions? Gradually, I learned that the Board as a whole and members individually had no idea what the answers were or should be. Part of my job was to work out the answers to the other ones, using every tool in the book to enlist the cooperation of the Board as a whole.
I relied on my staff, I relied on colleagues in similar positions, and I talked often to my father who served as co-CEO of the American Bible Society and then as CEO (aka General Secretary) of the United Bible Societies. All provided me with invaluable information, suggestions, support, and venting space. Yet, at the end of the day, I carried on my shoulders the entire burden of managing the Board.
From the perspective of managerial effectiveness, I wanted it that way. Many staff carrying multiple messages would only confuse things. Yes, staff could interact with and help the Board - only with my full knowledge and agreement and consent.
Sad to say, I needed to be the chief liaison with the Board from a political perspective, in order to maintain my position as ED. I had reached the top of the non-profit heap and was a great target for someone who wanted to have my position, visibility, influence, and power. And, as I found to my chagrin, there is no better way for someone to oust an incumbent ED than by working behind the scenes with one or more ambitious Board member who seeks the pinnacle of volunteering: being Chairman of the Board of a prestigious non-profit organization. I told him that I believe I was no longer at City Harvest because, while recuperating from a hip replacement, I was out of regular touch with the Board. While other things may have contributed to my ouster, I am convinced that the KOD (kiss of death) was my lack of regular contact with and hands-on management of the Board.
That leads nicely to my next lesson.
2) The “care and feeding of the Board” is at least 50% of an ED's job.
My colleague estimated he would need to spend 25 to 40% of his time focused on the Board. Au contraire, I said. I could never have handled my Board responsibilities if I spent less than 50% of my time with them. That was the experience of my father and other colleagues. Few outsiders believe that this is necessary. I'm here to say that EDs listen to these outsiders at our own peril.
I remember telling the then-Chairman of City Harvest's Board about that rule of thumb and his thinking that a ridiculous amount of time. He told me not to spend so much time on the Board - he wanted the organization to get more of my attention. Fortunately, I was pretty seasoned by this time and completely ignored his request. He didn't get that, by working with Board members individually and as a whole, I was giving the organization my full attention. (Years later, he acknowledged that he now knew better.)
The reality is that an ED must spend a lot of time developing relationships with every Board member and each Board Committee and the Board as a whole, in order to achieve any agreement and forward movement on the organization's agenda. I can't fathom how I would have gotten approval for one Action Plan and two Strategic Plans if I hadn't invested major time and thought into "working the Board" - all 17 to 33 (or more) Board members. I talked, asked questions, listened, pleaded, flattered, cajoled, "talked turkey," made alliances, courted, appealed to ego and ambition, flirted, involved, confided in, strategized, meditated, dreamed, vented, cried, cheered, invited, thanked, and more – anything I could think of to do, I did. All of it was in order to find out what various Board members thought, wanted, feared, hated, liked, desired, and needed. Then I took that information and put it through my own mental sieve. Only then was I ready to work with my senior staff to devise the processes, strategies and scripts that would yield Board consensus and forward movement for the organization.
And that leads to the third lesson.
3) Board members spend 90% of their time elsewhere and 10% on their Board membership, if we’re lucky.
The reasons for this are obvious: Board members have occupations and lives that fill their minds and calendars. We want people on our Boards who have money, contacts, clout and hopefully good sense. If we have to sacrifice anything, it's the good sense - because we need their money, contacts and clout to make the organization's work possible.
The consequences of the 90/10 rule are so far-reaching, I can only name a couple here. I emphasize that understanding the cause of these consequences is key to reducing and even eliminating the frustration experienced almost universally by staff leaders.
The most pervasive symptom of the 90/10 rule is that Board members seem to "check their brains at the door" of the Board room. It can seem that Board members forget almost all they knew from one meeting to another, and that they never read the materials painstakingly prepared by staff. Optimally, Board members will read materials before the meeting. Assuming they will not is a far better rule of thumb. Board members are busy, their time filled with other priorities. Generally, the time they set aside to attend a Board meeting is all the time they can spare for the non-profit. So it behooves the ED to prepare crisp, bullet-pointed written reports and then present short, purposeful verbal reports at the Board meeting.
The wise ED will talk before the meeting with as many Board members as possible, to lay the groundwork for any discussion and decision that will occur. If there is little time to spend talking with individual Board members, the ED needs to focus on the most influential - or consider postponing the topic until a later time and then spend as much time as needed to educate Board members and allay concerns before the next meeting. A Board meeting is no time for surprises for the ED.
Another consequence of the 90/10 rule is that any one Board member who does spend a lot of time volunteering or working with staff will have an inordinate amount of power and sway within the Board. Often, other Board members will think: “well, s/he spends so much time on it, he must know what’s going on, so I’ll listen to him…” In the meetings, other Board members will often defer to this Board member, making sure to solicit his or her opinion before any decision. The smart ED quickly makes an ally of this Board member.
Founders often fall into this category. Regardless of the amount of money they give and/or get, founders usually receive great respect and deference from all other Board members. If the founder does not like the ED, it does not matter how well the ED does her/his job technically. That ED is not long for his or her job - a lesson I learned at New York Restoration Project.
In sum, Board management can make staff management look and feel simple. However, bearing all these things in mind, an Executive Director can be more successful at the job of managing a Board of Directors.
Monday, April 7, 2008
"Hired Help" or Co-Owner?
Today, I read a study sponsored by the Annie Casey Foundation about the future of non-profit leadership: Ready to Lead? Next Generation Leaders Speak Out. On its Key Findings page, the report states "Nonprofit executive directors are burning out and leaving the sector in alarming numbers. Meanwhile, emerging leaders are thinking twice about stepping into the breach." While citing various reasons for this conundrum, the report does not cite the role played by Boards of Directors who do not treat executive directors as their peers, their partners, their co-owners.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of my dismissal by City Harvest's Board was realizing they saw me as the "hired help" rather than a co-owner of the organization. Because I was paid a salary - a much too low salary, for that matter - I was expendable. I could be fired, with no notice and no consideration for the time, love and money I invested over 11 years. I was not their equal, I was merely the person they used to make themselves look good. Success has many parents, and the success of my vision, leadership and hard work led many Board members to adopt it as their own.
My investment of time was substantial. I lived City Harvest 24 hours a day. And as its leader, I built City Harvest into an incredibly successful organization in all ways. When I was interviewed by the Chairman of the Board of Citizens for NYC, he said that what I accomplished was nothing short of miraculous. And yet, after 11 years, my salary was just a tad over $150,000 - less than 1.5% of the cash operating budget and .6% of the total budget. CEOs of $25 million companies certainly make more than that. The severance I got amounted to 1 week for every year of service, and the Board told me they felt that was generous. The same week, Carly Fiorina also was fired by the HP Board. She left with millions and millions of dollars in severance and stock options.
Essentially, I subsidized the operations of City Harvest by taking less pay than I was worth. If I monetized my time, my financial investment in the organization is substantial - certainly worthy of my being considered a co-owner. Yet the structure of non-profits gives all power to Boards and no power to executives. My dedication to a cause was taken for granted instead of appreciated. My contribution was ignored.
Given the choice of making money and being treated badly, or making no money and being treated badly, is it any wonder younger people find non-profit leadership positions unappealing?
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of my dismissal by City Harvest's Board was realizing they saw me as the "hired help" rather than a co-owner of the organization. Because I was paid a salary - a much too low salary, for that matter - I was expendable. I could be fired, with no notice and no consideration for the time, love and money I invested over 11 years. I was not their equal, I was merely the person they used to make themselves look good. Success has many parents, and the success of my vision, leadership and hard work led many Board members to adopt it as their own.
My investment of time was substantial. I lived City Harvest 24 hours a day. And as its leader, I built City Harvest into an incredibly successful organization in all ways. When I was interviewed by the Chairman of the Board of Citizens for NYC, he said that what I accomplished was nothing short of miraculous. And yet, after 11 years, my salary was just a tad over $150,000 - less than 1.5% of the cash operating budget and .6% of the total budget. CEOs of $25 million companies certainly make more than that. The severance I got amounted to 1 week for every year of service, and the Board told me they felt that was generous. The same week, Carly Fiorina also was fired by the HP Board. She left with millions and millions of dollars in severance and stock options.
Essentially, I subsidized the operations of City Harvest by taking less pay than I was worth. If I monetized my time, my financial investment in the organization is substantial - certainly worthy of my being considered a co-owner. Yet the structure of non-profits gives all power to Boards and no power to executives. My dedication to a cause was taken for granted instead of appreciated. My contribution was ignored.
Given the choice of making money and being treated badly, or making no money and being treated badly, is it any wonder younger people find non-profit leadership positions unappealing?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Listening to the Lone Dissenter
While leading City Harvest, I focused on creating a culture that fostered continuous improvement. One key strategy was to listen to the lone dissenter in a discussion. 10 out of 10 times, we ended up with a better decision, project, plan or outcome.
It's a very simple strategy that requires patience from all team members, and a disciplined consistency from the team leader. Patience is required because often teams come to a point where almost everyone agrees on a solution and those in agreement want to use "majority rules" and move on. The last thing they want to do is listen to the one person who seems unwilling to go along with the group. That's why the leader must consistently use the strategy and resist the pressure to close discussion.
I often implemented this strategy when my team and I were deciding whether and when to start a project, or to change some kind of personnel practice. My team of 7 or 8 people would discuss the desired outcome and how to implement it for a period of time. Someone would keep notes and usually I facilitated the discussion to reach conclusions and keep us on track toward making a group decision.
At a certain point, it was obvious that people were repeating points and we were ready to see if we could end the discussion with a decision. When I polled team members, I encouraged them to voice any objections or hesitations. If someone did so, then the group gave that person the floor to lay out his or her concern or issue.
The group then discussed those objections or hesitations, seeking to resolve them satisfactorily. Usually, this meant some kind of revision in the decision or plan - its content, its timing, the delivery mechanism, communication methods, people responsible, feedback mechanisms, etc. Sometimes, we realized we were not ready to make a decision and needed more research. Interestingly, the subsequent discussion usually took far less time than people feared - another 20 to 30 minutes. This extra time saved us from potential ruinous results.
Whatever the result, it was improved dramatically by listening to the lone dissenter. Our strategy demonstrated respect for everyone's opinion, made room for the less vocal team members to make their points, and allowed someone who thought more deliberately to raise questions. By not rushing to follow a "majority rule" decision, I ensured that our decisions were as thoughtful and effective as possible.
I intend to provide an example of how this worked so will have to do some research into my old notes. In the meantime, give it a try!
It's a very simple strategy that requires patience from all team members, and a disciplined consistency from the team leader. Patience is required because often teams come to a point where almost everyone agrees on a solution and those in agreement want to use "majority rules" and move on. The last thing they want to do is listen to the one person who seems unwilling to go along with the group. That's why the leader must consistently use the strategy and resist the pressure to close discussion.
I often implemented this strategy when my team and I were deciding whether and when to start a project, or to change some kind of personnel practice. My team of 7 or 8 people would discuss the desired outcome and how to implement it for a period of time. Someone would keep notes and usually I facilitated the discussion to reach conclusions and keep us on track toward making a group decision.
At a certain point, it was obvious that people were repeating points and we were ready to see if we could end the discussion with a decision. When I polled team members, I encouraged them to voice any objections or hesitations. If someone did so, then the group gave that person the floor to lay out his or her concern or issue.
The group then discussed those objections or hesitations, seeking to resolve them satisfactorily. Usually, this meant some kind of revision in the decision or plan - its content, its timing, the delivery mechanism, communication methods, people responsible, feedback mechanisms, etc. Sometimes, we realized we were not ready to make a decision and needed more research. Interestingly, the subsequent discussion usually took far less time than people feared - another 20 to 30 minutes. This extra time saved us from potential ruinous results.
Whatever the result, it was improved dramatically by listening to the lone dissenter. Our strategy demonstrated respect for everyone's opinion, made room for the less vocal team members to make their points, and allowed someone who thought more deliberately to raise questions. By not rushing to follow a "majority rule" decision, I ensured that our decisions were as thoughtful and effective as possible.
I intend to provide an example of how this worked so will have to do some research into my old notes. In the meantime, give it a try!
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Break It Down: Planning for a Cascade Effect
Identifying what it will take for YOU to achieve your goal is reverse engineering – identifying the steps you’ll need to take to reach your desired goal and get the results you want. Break down each project into a series of actions and intermediate outcomes.
It’s like building a house: first you dream about what you want and an architect translates it into a drawing. Then the architect creates a blueprint that clarifies the specific dimensions and characteristics of the house. Once that’s done, the architect creates specifications: the exact materials and products to be used, weight loads, wiring and lighting required, plumbing needs, etc. – what the contractor needs to actually build the house. The contractor then has a whole series of activities to plan, from laying the foundation to erecting the shell to installing all the building systems to putting in all the finishes inside and out, and finally landscaping.
The key to all this is that they all work backwards from the ultimate goal – a fabulous new move-in ready house – to develop the plan of action for achieving that goal. Each step depends on a preceding one, until ultimately we arrive at the beginning action. What is the first thing that needs to be done to build the house?
You wouldn’t start to build a house by digging a hole in the ground and going from there – even though digging a hole in the ground is the first concrete step in building a house. You would need to know how big a hole – how deep, how long, how wide – and how to dig the hole – is a back-hoe enough or is a bull-dozer needed? That depends on what kind of soil there is, what currently is on the land (trees to be removed? An existing structure? Nothing?), how big the hole needs to be, and how fast the digging has to be done.
Envisioning the outcome isn’t enough, either. To build a house, we will have to take action: actually dig the hole, pound nails, order lumber, hire crews, check work, make decisions, spend money and time.
Similarly, every project we do will have a series of steps, involving decisions and actions. This form can help you work backwards from your goal, thinking through all the intermediate outcomes and actions needed to get you to that goal, all the way to the first thing you need to do.
If I want X, what will it take to get it? To get X, I have to do A. To be able to do A, I need to do B. To be able to do B, I need to do C. To be able to do C, I need to do D. And so on it goes.
Obviously, writing it down is essential. On a blank sheet of paper, make a simple chart divided into two colums and several rows. The first column is for your labels, and the second is for you to write in. In the top left box, write "Outcome." This is for the goal or end result you desire. In the box below, write "Action." This is for the step you must take in order to achieve the action listed above. The third box in column one is labeled "Outcome," the fourth is labeled "Action" and so on down the column.
To fill in the form, start with the final outcome or end result you want. For example, I want to have a beautiful perennial garden that blooms all season. The action immediately before that is to plant diverse perennials. The outcome before that is to have the perennials to plant. The action needed is to buy the perennials. The outcome before that is to have a source of the plants. Thus, I need to select a source. To make a choice, I need a few options. So my action is to identify several nurseries. To identify nurseries that have perennials suited to my growing climate (outcome), I need to do two things: identify my growing climate, and do some research on nurseries.
Now I might divide each box in the second column into two pieces, to follow each thread. For thread one, the outcome of knowing my growing climate requires that I look on websites or in magazines for this information. And to find those sources (outcome), I need to use an on-line search engine and/or go to the library or bookstore. To have a successful search, I need to simply know my state and zip code.
For thread two, I can research nurseries in two ways: talking to friends who garden, or finding them through reference guides. Knowing friends who garden (outcome) means asking people if they garden (action). Having useful reference guides means listing possible sources of information about nurseries - the internet, a local website, the Yellow Pages, gardening magazines, or some of the newer GPS devices that have local sites loaded in to their memory. Of course, there's always driving around the area to see what nurseries might exist. That's a little hit-or-miss, although perhaps a great way to orient yourself to a new community and a serendipitous way to find fun things in and about your area.
Practically any goal you have can be achieved simply by identifying the small steps that go into reaching that goal. In this way, you can break down something daunting into manageable, doable actions. So instead of being afraid you'll never achieve something, you can remove the fear factor and empower yourself to do just about anything you want to do.
It’s like building a house: first you dream about what you want and an architect translates it into a drawing. Then the architect creates a blueprint that clarifies the specific dimensions and characteristics of the house. Once that’s done, the architect creates specifications: the exact materials and products to be used, weight loads, wiring and lighting required, plumbing needs, etc. – what the contractor needs to actually build the house. The contractor then has a whole series of activities to plan, from laying the foundation to erecting the shell to installing all the building systems to putting in all the finishes inside and out, and finally landscaping.
The key to all this is that they all work backwards from the ultimate goal – a fabulous new move-in ready house – to develop the plan of action for achieving that goal. Each step depends on a preceding one, until ultimately we arrive at the beginning action. What is the first thing that needs to be done to build the house?
You wouldn’t start to build a house by digging a hole in the ground and going from there – even though digging a hole in the ground is the first concrete step in building a house. You would need to know how big a hole – how deep, how long, how wide – and how to dig the hole – is a back-hoe enough or is a bull-dozer needed? That depends on what kind of soil there is, what currently is on the land (trees to be removed? An existing structure? Nothing?), how big the hole needs to be, and how fast the digging has to be done.
Envisioning the outcome isn’t enough, either. To build a house, we will have to take action: actually dig the hole, pound nails, order lumber, hire crews, check work, make decisions, spend money and time.
Similarly, every project we do will have a series of steps, involving decisions and actions. This form can help you work backwards from your goal, thinking through all the intermediate outcomes and actions needed to get you to that goal, all the way to the first thing you need to do.
If I want X, what will it take to get it? To get X, I have to do A. To be able to do A, I need to do B. To be able to do B, I need to do C. To be able to do C, I need to do D. And so on it goes.
Obviously, writing it down is essential. On a blank sheet of paper, make a simple chart divided into two colums and several rows. The first column is for your labels, and the second is for you to write in. In the top left box, write "Outcome." This is for the goal or end result you desire. In the box below, write "Action." This is for the step you must take in order to achieve the action listed above. The third box in column one is labeled "Outcome," the fourth is labeled "Action" and so on down the column.
To fill in the form, start with the final outcome or end result you want. For example, I want to have a beautiful perennial garden that blooms all season. The action immediately before that is to plant diverse perennials. The outcome before that is to have the perennials to plant. The action needed is to buy the perennials. The outcome before that is to have a source of the plants. Thus, I need to select a source. To make a choice, I need a few options. So my action is to identify several nurseries. To identify nurseries that have perennials suited to my growing climate (outcome), I need to do two things: identify my growing climate, and do some research on nurseries.
Now I might divide each box in the second column into two pieces, to follow each thread. For thread one, the outcome of knowing my growing climate requires that I look on websites or in magazines for this information. And to find those sources (outcome), I need to use an on-line search engine and/or go to the library or bookstore. To have a successful search, I need to simply know my state and zip code.
For thread two, I can research nurseries in two ways: talking to friends who garden, or finding them through reference guides. Knowing friends who garden (outcome) means asking people if they garden (action). Having useful reference guides means listing possible sources of information about nurseries - the internet, a local website, the Yellow Pages, gardening magazines, or some of the newer GPS devices that have local sites loaded in to their memory. Of course, there's always driving around the area to see what nurseries might exist. That's a little hit-or-miss, although perhaps a great way to orient yourself to a new community and a serendipitous way to find fun things in and about your area.
Practically any goal you have can be achieved simply by identifying the small steps that go into reaching that goal. In this way, you can break down something daunting into manageable, doable actions. So instead of being afraid you'll never achieve something, you can remove the fear factor and empower yourself to do just about anything you want to do.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The importance of space
I think that it is possible for employees to determine aspects of the work environment especially if management is oblivious to the importance of work environment.
For instance, at my former organization, we changed locations midway through my tenure. I took the opportunity to change the configuration of office.
In the old space, the drivers and transportation office occupied cramped, noisy space out of sight of visitors to the office. And there was a little window from dispatch to the hallway by the elevators. The other office staff were in a wide open, bright loft space, except for the Finance Director who was in another corner tucked away from any interaction with the rest of the staff.
A couple of things were at play partly as a result. The drivers and dispatch felt disrespected and not part of the "real" organization. And the physical environment fed that, because their work space was awful. Plus that little window gave them access to and a relationship with the outside world - drivers never even had to come into the office to transact some business.
Meanwhile, the office staff - people who did fundraising and marketing and worked with food donors and agencies that got and distributed food - felt that the transportation staff was really unprofessional and didn't really appreciate all they did. And of course, no one really got how important Finance was.
It got so bad that people talked about "Park Avenue" and "The Ghetto." Guess which was which!
In the new space, we designed it so that the first thing anyone sees when they come off the elevators and into the office is the dispatch office. It's the heart of the operation, with a big glass wall. The rest of the space is open and loft-like. There are offices on two walls, all of which have lots of glass and light streaming through. People from different departments are seated together, to encourage sharing of information. Drivers have a locker room and dedicated computers where they can work when they come in. They have to enter the office to get to the kitchen, to their mailboxes, to the computers, so they are visible to office workers, and vice versa.
In the old space, people could take the unspoken messages and create their own interpretation - so it was frightening for some office staff to interact with drivers, and vice versa. When we hired new drivers, we found the most successful were those who already knew a bunch of drivers. This was not the greatest thing if we wanted to have a more professional attitude. But the new, unrelated drivers were driven out by a cliquish culture that demanded certain attitudes and behavior. Obviously, we had to change our hiring practices and performance management systems as well. But changing the physical space helped A LOT! Just being treated more professionally and with respect, and as part of, not apart from, helped drivers view themselves as professionals.
Similarly, the majority of the office staff was white women when I arrived. And they were their own clique, who made it very difficult for Jewish or Latino or African-American women or men to feel part of "the gang." So I made some key hires and moved some people from their choice offices to make room for the new people, thereby signaling that some of the new people had status, and mixing people up so they had to relate to people not exactly like them. We had some people who left, and that was OK because the people who stayed loved the diversity and the feeling that everyone was part of the same big organization rather than part of a little clique.
Interestingly enough, I encountered resistance from some of my direct reports about the space configuration when we moved. They wanted all their staff to sit together rather than be interspersed throughout the space. It was such a short-sighted view, based on them wanting it to be really easy to supervise folks. Gradually, they came to see that it was better for the organization for people to sit near and get to know people from other departments, if only to familiarize them with other aspects of the organization. Later, some of them came to me to say I was right because the scattering of people led to new teams and new ideas surfacing from the most unexpected places - things that really helped the organization because you had people with different vantage points thinking about how to solve a common problem.
For instance, at my former organization, we changed locations midway through my tenure. I took the opportunity to change the configuration of office.
In the old space, the drivers and transportation office occupied cramped, noisy space out of sight of visitors to the office. And there was a little window from dispatch to the hallway by the elevators. The other office staff were in a wide open, bright loft space, except for the Finance Director who was in another corner tucked away from any interaction with the rest of the staff.
A couple of things were at play partly as a result. The drivers and dispatch felt disrespected and not part of the "real" organization. And the physical environment fed that, because their work space was awful. Plus that little window gave them access to and a relationship with the outside world - drivers never even had to come into the office to transact some business.
Meanwhile, the office staff - people who did fundraising and marketing and worked with food donors and agencies that got and distributed food - felt that the transportation staff was really unprofessional and didn't really appreciate all they did. And of course, no one really got how important Finance was.
It got so bad that people talked about "Park Avenue" and "The Ghetto." Guess which was which!
In the new space, we designed it so that the first thing anyone sees when they come off the elevators and into the office is the dispatch office. It's the heart of the operation, with a big glass wall. The rest of the space is open and loft-like. There are offices on two walls, all of which have lots of glass and light streaming through. People from different departments are seated together, to encourage sharing of information. Drivers have a locker room and dedicated computers where they can work when they come in. They have to enter the office to get to the kitchen, to their mailboxes, to the computers, so they are visible to office workers, and vice versa.
In the old space, people could take the unspoken messages and create their own interpretation - so it was frightening for some office staff to interact with drivers, and vice versa. When we hired new drivers, we found the most successful were those who already knew a bunch of drivers. This was not the greatest thing if we wanted to have a more professional attitude. But the new, unrelated drivers were driven out by a cliquish culture that demanded certain attitudes and behavior. Obviously, we had to change our hiring practices and performance management systems as well. But changing the physical space helped A LOT! Just being treated more professionally and with respect, and as part of, not apart from, helped drivers view themselves as professionals.
Similarly, the majority of the office staff was white women when I arrived. And they were their own clique, who made it very difficult for Jewish or Latino or African-American women or men to feel part of "the gang." So I made some key hires and moved some people from their choice offices to make room for the new people, thereby signaling that some of the new people had status, and mixing people up so they had to relate to people not exactly like them. We had some people who left, and that was OK because the people who stayed loved the diversity and the feeling that everyone was part of the same big organization rather than part of a little clique.
Interestingly enough, I encountered resistance from some of my direct reports about the space configuration when we moved. They wanted all their staff to sit together rather than be interspersed throughout the space. It was such a short-sighted view, based on them wanting it to be really easy to supervise folks. Gradually, they came to see that it was better for the organization for people to sit near and get to know people from other departments, if only to familiarize them with other aspects of the organization. Later, some of them came to me to say I was right because the scattering of people led to new teams and new ideas surfacing from the most unexpected places - things that really helped the organization because you had people with different vantage points thinking about how to solve a common problem.
Friday, August 17, 2007
The “Pie” of Life
Our lives have many different aspects, and often it’s helpful to remember that many segments are functioning quite well even as one or two pieces seem to be out of control. Look at it visually.
On any piece of paper, draw a circle and divide it into 8 segments. Label each segment as it best relates to your own particular circumstances:
- Work (or Life’s Work, or Vocation, or Mission, or Passion)
- Family (biological, chosen, or both; could include Community)
- Friends (or Companionship, or Fun; could include Pets)
- Spirit (or Mental Health, or Soul Health, or Religious Life)
- Body (or Physical Well-being, or Health)
- Love (or Marriage, or Relationship, or Sex Life)
- Home (or Place in World, Safety & Security, Material Well-being; could include Car, Furniture, Clothes, Neighborhood, Cleanliness and Safety)
- Money (or Financial Health, or Economic Well-being)
Then, using different colors, color in each segment according to how well you think you are doing in each of them. I use a scale of 1-10, with 10 being as you want it to be - completely fulfilled and balanced. Color in the segment to the extent of the number (10 is the segment completely colored in).
It's fascinating to literally see where one is out of balance. I've never completely filled in all segments, but I’ve been close. Then life happens and something demands my attention and things go a little out of whack again. I can focus a bit more attention on those areas to identify possible actions to help me get back in balance and feel more fulfilled. And I can be patient with my life process.
The “Pie” of Life is a visual reminder that my life has many aspects. It reminds me to pay attention to all of them. It assures me that the out-of-balance areas are just temporary, by visually demonstrating that I'm fine in other areas. This gives me confidence that I'll be fine in this segment, given time, faith and some targeted action.
With thanks to Linda Hall, CMC who helped me make my first "pie."
Hiring the "right fit"
In my MBA course reading, I've been struck by how successful 3M has been in overlaying its corporate culture on top of national cultures.
Maybe it has to do with the philosophy of the people in charge and the company culture that says ideas come from anywhere and everywhere. The culture respects other cultures, and in so doing, seems to include them. People see themselves as part of 3M, and really proud of it - seems they identify more as that than anything else, at least in the context of the company. It doesn't seem like there is any conflict, though. I don't get the impression that they're being asked to give up any part of who they are. It's more that they're being asked to tap into parts of themselves and their identities that match the 3M culture. And there are people who can't do that and so don't make it in the company. The toughness of the 3M culture is that it doesn't tolerate people who don't fit in.
I think that national cultures also reject people who don't fit in, but in different ways (obviously they can't fire someone!). Yet there is room in a national culture for many different kinds of people, and for regional and community and neighborhood differences. And of course, people are made up of many different attributes, capacities, talents, abilities, preferences and tendencies.
So even in a national culture that has certain attributes, there will be people who are more suited for a 3M culture. The trick is to find them, and that starts with a very rigorous hiring process that is based on the company vision.
I remember being taught long ago in a marketing class that "marketing was everything" and that meant that our brand needed to permeate everything and everyone so there was consistency throughout the organization. Every encounter an outsider had with the personnel and structures of our organization conveyed the same brand values. Another course on "Creating a Visionary Organization" talks about alignment of vision and values throughout the organization, which is much the same principle.
It makes sense to screen for people who are most likely to be successful in your environment. It's important that applicants are told about the vision during the interview process and asked some questions to determine whether they understand and share the vision and values. People can always learn specific skills and tools/machines, but you can't teach them values. They have to have those in the first place, and that then provides fertile ground for them to learn and internalize the company culture.
So I believe that anyone who works for the organization has to understand and embrace the vision and values. We used to do very extensive screening and interviewing before hiring anyone at the non-profit I led. It took us a couple of years to put a really good system in place, after some trial and error.
I advocate comprehensive communication, and to me, that includes telling prospective employees about the company vision and values and how they will be expected to behave and think within that context. That includes all levels and types of employees.
Line workers are the ones who are day to day responsible for meeting production quotas and ensuring quality, so it seems important that they understand the values and importance of living those values. So, for example, at City Harvest, we spent a lot of time and energy on hiring new drivers, who were our front-line staff. Drivers who just saw it as a job didn't last very long. Drivers who saw it as a mission ended up staying a lot longer as well as becoming contributors to the problem-solving culture we fostered.
The system involved setting out our mission and values right in the job posting and ads, so people knew that it wasn't just any job or organization. Other aspects included reviewing cover letters to see if someone reiterated any of our mission language and/or had spent any time on our website; making sure the basic requirements for the job were met; and having several people review the potential candidates to come to consensus about who should be contacted for an initial phone interview.
On the phone interview (conducted by our HR people), candidates were "grilled" about their own values and behaviors, asked to respond to our vision and values, and talk about what it would mean to them to work at City Harvest. We only wanted people who really wanted to work at the organization, who believed in our mission, and who understood and believed in working in teams, cooperating with other people, going the extra mile to get the job done, pursuing excellence, and going for smart, simple solutions to any kind of problem.
By the time someone got to the in-person interview, they already knew enough to be excited about the interview or had already taken themselves out of the running (usually, though, we eliminated people who weren't a fit during the phone interview). In-person interviews were done by at least two people, generally from different departments, because our work was interdepartmental, with everyone dependent on everyone else. And of course, we checked references. Even though it's getting more difficult to get qualitative references from people, we did try to talk to at least two people who would have something substantive to say about the candidate.
Usually, I met with the final one or two candidates for mid-level and up positions, and of course was heavily involved in hiring people who reported directly to me. For those senior people, I always involved members of the Board of Directors, because the person would inevitably interact with the Board, and should understand the Board culture (which was slightly different from the organization's, unfortunately).
The process was time- and resource-intensive. And well worth every bit of energy! We had very little turnover in the lower ranks of the organization, and even senior people stayed for many years when the industry norm was two years.
Maybe it has to do with the philosophy of the people in charge and the company culture that says ideas come from anywhere and everywhere. The culture respects other cultures, and in so doing, seems to include them. People see themselves as part of 3M, and really proud of it - seems they identify more as that than anything else, at least in the context of the company. It doesn't seem like there is any conflict, though. I don't get the impression that they're being asked to give up any part of who they are. It's more that they're being asked to tap into parts of themselves and their identities that match the 3M culture. And there are people who can't do that and so don't make it in the company. The toughness of the 3M culture is that it doesn't tolerate people who don't fit in.
I think that national cultures also reject people who don't fit in, but in different ways (obviously they can't fire someone!). Yet there is room in a national culture for many different kinds of people, and for regional and community and neighborhood differences. And of course, people are made up of many different attributes, capacities, talents, abilities, preferences and tendencies.
So even in a national culture that has certain attributes, there will be people who are more suited for a 3M culture. The trick is to find them, and that starts with a very rigorous hiring process that is based on the company vision.
I remember being taught long ago in a marketing class that "marketing was everything" and that meant that our brand needed to permeate everything and everyone so there was consistency throughout the organization. Every encounter an outsider had with the personnel and structures of our organization conveyed the same brand values. Another course on "Creating a Visionary Organization" talks about alignment of vision and values throughout the organization, which is much the same principle.
It makes sense to screen for people who are most likely to be successful in your environment. It's important that applicants are told about the vision during the interview process and asked some questions to determine whether they understand and share the vision and values. People can always learn specific skills and tools/machines, but you can't teach them values. They have to have those in the first place, and that then provides fertile ground for them to learn and internalize the company culture.
So I believe that anyone who works for the organization has to understand and embrace the vision and values. We used to do very extensive screening and interviewing before hiring anyone at the non-profit I led. It took us a couple of years to put a really good system in place, after some trial and error.
I advocate comprehensive communication, and to me, that includes telling prospective employees about the company vision and values and how they will be expected to behave and think within that context. That includes all levels and types of employees.
Line workers are the ones who are day to day responsible for meeting production quotas and ensuring quality, so it seems important that they understand the values and importance of living those values. So, for example, at City Harvest, we spent a lot of time and energy on hiring new drivers, who were our front-line staff. Drivers who just saw it as a job didn't last very long. Drivers who saw it as a mission ended up staying a lot longer as well as becoming contributors to the problem-solving culture we fostered.
The system involved setting out our mission and values right in the job posting and ads, so people knew that it wasn't just any job or organization. Other aspects included reviewing cover letters to see if someone reiterated any of our mission language and/or had spent any time on our website; making sure the basic requirements for the job were met; and having several people review the potential candidates to come to consensus about who should be contacted for an initial phone interview.
On the phone interview (conducted by our HR people), candidates were "grilled" about their own values and behaviors, asked to respond to our vision and values, and talk about what it would mean to them to work at City Harvest. We only wanted people who really wanted to work at the organization, who believed in our mission, and who understood and believed in working in teams, cooperating with other people, going the extra mile to get the job done, pursuing excellence, and going for smart, simple solutions to any kind of problem.
By the time someone got to the in-person interview, they already knew enough to be excited about the interview or had already taken themselves out of the running (usually, though, we eliminated people who weren't a fit during the phone interview). In-person interviews were done by at least two people, generally from different departments, because our work was interdepartmental, with everyone dependent on everyone else. And of course, we checked references. Even though it's getting more difficult to get qualitative references from people, we did try to talk to at least two people who would have something substantive to say about the candidate.
Usually, I met with the final one or two candidates for mid-level and up positions, and of course was heavily involved in hiring people who reported directly to me. For those senior people, I always involved members of the Board of Directors, because the person would inevitably interact with the Board, and should understand the Board culture (which was slightly different from the organization's, unfortunately).
The process was time- and resource-intensive. And well worth every bit of energy! We had very little turnover in the lower ranks of the organization, and even senior people stayed for many years when the industry norm was two years.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
"Battle for the non-profit soul"
I have worked in the non-profit field for more than 25 years, and my father began working for an international non-profit in 1968 - so I've seen a lot of change in that field. One of my colleagues talks about the "battle for the soul of non-profits" now taking place as business people have begun to play bigger and bigger roles in non-profit governance and management.
As baby boomers grew into their 40s and 50s, many started to seek meaning in their work lives and turned to the non-profit sector - a place where they could "make a difference." Unfortunately, many brought an arrogance along with their skills, thinking that they were superior to people working in the non-profit field simply because they'd worked in the for-profit sector.
After a bit, I found that a lot of them left the non-profit sector because they couldn't deal with the challenges of raising money and then performing very difficult work with limited resources. Some were generous enough to say that they'd learned how to do more with less at the non-profit. I think the roots of the social entrepreneurship movement were born when people realized that they wanted to do good and make money at the same time. The for-profit people who remained active in non-profits brought their skills and abilities, as well as - more's the pity - their profit motivation.
Certainly, there's room for improvement in the non-profit sector, and I know many, many non-profit leaders who have sought to improve their management and leadership skills. Peter Drucker brought enormous resources and knowledge to the non-profit sector - and was a clock-builder who left a powerful legacy in the Drucker Institute and various periodicals and trained successors. What he never did, though, was belittle the non-profit leaders already working in the field. He had some respect. And he also respected the fact that the non-profit is about putting people first - that the bottom line is about who and how you've helped.
The newer Board members and migrants from the for-profit sector seem to have an attitude that it's the numbers that count, the impact you can measure, the dollars you raise, the way you invest your cash, balance sheets, etc. All of those are valuable tools, yes. But they do not get someone to volunteer time to teach a child to read. A balance sheet can reassure a donor that their dollars will be spent wisely. But the balance sheet does not get the person to open their wallet. The mission does. The heart does. The face of the child who is eating an apple for the first time is what gets someone to give.
I'm very sad about what's happening in the field. There's a generosity of spirit, a sense that we are part of a larger community, that's being lost in the pursuit of getting non-profits to "run more like businesses."
As baby boomers grew into their 40s and 50s, many started to seek meaning in their work lives and turned to the non-profit sector - a place where they could "make a difference." Unfortunately, many brought an arrogance along with their skills, thinking that they were superior to people working in the non-profit field simply because they'd worked in the for-profit sector.
After a bit, I found that a lot of them left the non-profit sector because they couldn't deal with the challenges of raising money and then performing very difficult work with limited resources. Some were generous enough to say that they'd learned how to do more with less at the non-profit. I think the roots of the social entrepreneurship movement were born when people realized that they wanted to do good and make money at the same time. The for-profit people who remained active in non-profits brought their skills and abilities, as well as - more's the pity - their profit motivation.
Certainly, there's room for improvement in the non-profit sector, and I know many, many non-profit leaders who have sought to improve their management and leadership skills. Peter Drucker brought enormous resources and knowledge to the non-profit sector - and was a clock-builder who left a powerful legacy in the Drucker Institute and various periodicals and trained successors. What he never did, though, was belittle the non-profit leaders already working in the field. He had some respect. And he also respected the fact that the non-profit is about putting people first - that the bottom line is about who and how you've helped.
The newer Board members and migrants from the for-profit sector seem to have an attitude that it's the numbers that count, the impact you can measure, the dollars you raise, the way you invest your cash, balance sheets, etc. All of those are valuable tools, yes. But they do not get someone to volunteer time to teach a child to read. A balance sheet can reassure a donor that their dollars will be spent wisely. But the balance sheet does not get the person to open their wallet. The mission does. The heart does. The face of the child who is eating an apple for the first time is what gets someone to give.
I'm very sad about what's happening in the field. There's a generosity of spirit, a sense that we are part of a larger community, that's being lost in the pursuit of getting non-profits to "run more like businesses."
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Non-profit and for-profit mindsets and operations
As a lifelong non-profit type, I never understood the mindset of the for-profit person - and may I say that the for-profit person often has an equally difficult time understanding the mindset of the non-profit person. Many for-profit folks think of non-profit people as less intelligent, less skilled, less motivated, less sophisticated. I took great pleasure in bursting those bubbles of disdain, while also recognizing that there are many in the non-profit sector who are not well-trained or well-educated or well-equipped simply because the sector doesn't have the same resources as the for-profits.
My mindset is always "let me help, let me put my gifts to use helping others find and use their own gifts." I am not motivated by money so much as by being of service to others. Yet at the same time, I believe in and value efficiency, effectiveness, results, measuring progress, having a demonstrable impact, being accountable - so many of the things that I am taught in the MBA program. It always struck me as a huge insult to those I said I wanted to help to operate sloppily or to tolerate incompetence. Treating people with dignity means doing my best, aspiring to excellence. It also means being entrepreneurial, in terms of looking for the best and most effective way to meet a human need.
Entrepreneurial spirit is not limited to profit-making enterprises and people - entrepreneurial people are innovators, initiators, dreamers who can bring their vision to life. There are tens of thousands of non-profit organizations that exist because someone had an idea that s/he could provide a needed service more effectively than the non-profits that already exist.
And non-profits compete, too, for limited foundation and corporate contributions, as well as for the charitable dollars contributed by individuals. More than 90% of charitable funding is from individuals, and so non-profits spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to market themselves to people, to get a potential donor just to open the envelope or the e-mail, to convince potential donors that their solution is the best one, and to get donors to give more the next time.
What we sell, however, isn't something consumable but something intangible, spiritual if you will. We sell good will, good feeling, satisfaction in doing good. Yes, fundraising is about getting money to support daily operations and activity. We do have a bottom line, after all, and have to break even (and hopefully put some money by for a rainy day). That's from the organization's side - we need money to feed people or put in wells or distribute mosquito nets or train someone in a new skill or to teach a child. Because there are costs associated with living on this planet and most of those costs require money in exchange. From the donor side, however, a non-profit is providing an opportunity to be part of making a difference, to have a positive impact on the world, to practice giving without expectation of return, to give back what the world has so generously given to you.
So it takes a slightly different perspective to market a non-profit. It takes an understanding of what makes people give. That's different from understanding what makes people buy. Of course, when my non-profit put on events, we understood what would make people buy tickets: a fabulous NYC venue with other people like them in attendance (ego), some celebrities with whom to rub shoulders (ego), a chance to wear an amazing dress (ego), and in the case of our events, a fun time to dance and eat and drink. Oh, yes, and a chance to learn a bit more about the organization and feel really good about dropping $1000 or $5000 or more that evening. Sort of like selling a product.
More than anything, it takes authenticity to attract funding. I really believe in the causes I support. I fundamentally believe that it is possible to improve conditions for many people, and that I have an obligation to work in that arena. That's the purpose that gets me going in the morning and afternoon, day after day.
What I understand from my MBA studies and talking to many people who now want to transition into working in the non-profit sector is that for-profit life is not like that. Money is the purpose, the creation and expansion of wealth is the reason for the corporation's very existence. People who want to work in non-profit now are motivated by adding meaning to their life. They have their basic needs taken care of, so now they want to help others meet their basic needs. That's a great shift in the consciousness of the boomers - the search is now for meaning instead of accumulating more, more, more wealth and profit. Some of these people have said "yes, I have enough stuff, but I don't have enough spirit." That makes me hopeful. Of course, many of these people are shocked by how much non-profits accomplish with so few financial resources and some gain long-overdue respect - or leave the sector.
Could a non-profit organization perform the same functions as a for-profit without being driven by the profit incentive?
I don't know. I mean, non-profits are usually organized around meeting the fundamental needs of people. I was Executive Director for 11 years of an anti-hunger non-profit in NYC - providing food for people who did not have the resources to get enough nutritious food for themselves and/or their families. I've worked with job training, with community gardening and local food production, helped community organizing around primary health care and economic development, around literacy and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment and housing - you name it. Even the largest non-profits like hospitals and universities are organized around basic human needs, for health and information and knowledge-building. There are those that get computers to non-profits or to low-income people. Most non-profits seem to provide a service that no one can or will pay for. So it gets provided for free by a non-profit. And thus the motive isn't profit or wealth creation per se, but doing good, redistributing resources, ensuring that something valuable is available to everyone in society not just those with money.
Theoretically, I suppose a non-profit could organize around getting just about anything to anyone if you really wanted to create a disincentive to the profit motive. Today, the legal restrictions on non-profits mitigate against this. Non-profits are tax-exempt in the US and most of the world because they perform work for the public good, the public benefit. My understanding is that for-profits are taxed because they perform work for their own benefit or for the benefit of very few people. I just can't see a non-profit making and selling yachts to wealthy people. Making yachts for anyone to ride on, that I could see. But who's going to pay for it?
It's a conundrum, because we have a society and a global economy that is based on the currency of exchange, and the creation of wealth seems to be the engine for the system, with human nature the fuel. I wish people had less desire to have more and more and more. That seems to be a basic human characteristic, however. Those of us who have somehow moved out of the "more" syndrome have done so through years of work and self-examination. And speaking for myself, I slide back into it when I see something I like and want and can convince myself I "need." Eternal vigilance is the price I pay for enlightenment! :-)
My mindset is always "let me help, let me put my gifts to use helping others find and use their own gifts." I am not motivated by money so much as by being of service to others. Yet at the same time, I believe in and value efficiency, effectiveness, results, measuring progress, having a demonstrable impact, being accountable - so many of the things that I am taught in the MBA program. It always struck me as a huge insult to those I said I wanted to help to operate sloppily or to tolerate incompetence. Treating people with dignity means doing my best, aspiring to excellence. It also means being entrepreneurial, in terms of looking for the best and most effective way to meet a human need.
Entrepreneurial spirit is not limited to profit-making enterprises and people - entrepreneurial people are innovators, initiators, dreamers who can bring their vision to life. There are tens of thousands of non-profit organizations that exist because someone had an idea that s/he could provide a needed service more effectively than the non-profits that already exist.
And non-profits compete, too, for limited foundation and corporate contributions, as well as for the charitable dollars contributed by individuals. More than 90% of charitable funding is from individuals, and so non-profits spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to market themselves to people, to get a potential donor just to open the envelope or the e-mail, to convince potential donors that their solution is the best one, and to get donors to give more the next time.
What we sell, however, isn't something consumable but something intangible, spiritual if you will. We sell good will, good feeling, satisfaction in doing good. Yes, fundraising is about getting money to support daily operations and activity. We do have a bottom line, after all, and have to break even (and hopefully put some money by for a rainy day). That's from the organization's side - we need money to feed people or put in wells or distribute mosquito nets or train someone in a new skill or to teach a child. Because there are costs associated with living on this planet and most of those costs require money in exchange. From the donor side, however, a non-profit is providing an opportunity to be part of making a difference, to have a positive impact on the world, to practice giving without expectation of return, to give back what the world has so generously given to you.
So it takes a slightly different perspective to market a non-profit. It takes an understanding of what makes people give. That's different from understanding what makes people buy. Of course, when my non-profit put on events, we understood what would make people buy tickets: a fabulous NYC venue with other people like them in attendance (ego), some celebrities with whom to rub shoulders (ego), a chance to wear an amazing dress (ego), and in the case of our events, a fun time to dance and eat and drink. Oh, yes, and a chance to learn a bit more about the organization and feel really good about dropping $1000 or $5000 or more that evening. Sort of like selling a product.
More than anything, it takes authenticity to attract funding. I really believe in the causes I support. I fundamentally believe that it is possible to improve conditions for many people, and that I have an obligation to work in that arena. That's the purpose that gets me going in the morning and afternoon, day after day.
What I understand from my MBA studies and talking to many people who now want to transition into working in the non-profit sector is that for-profit life is not like that. Money is the purpose, the creation and expansion of wealth is the reason for the corporation's very existence. People who want to work in non-profit now are motivated by adding meaning to their life. They have their basic needs taken care of, so now they want to help others meet their basic needs. That's a great shift in the consciousness of the boomers - the search is now for meaning instead of accumulating more, more, more wealth and profit. Some of these people have said "yes, I have enough stuff, but I don't have enough spirit." That makes me hopeful. Of course, many of these people are shocked by how much non-profits accomplish with so few financial resources and some gain long-overdue respect - or leave the sector.
Could a non-profit organization perform the same functions as a for-profit without being driven by the profit incentive?
I don't know. I mean, non-profits are usually organized around meeting the fundamental needs of people. I was Executive Director for 11 years of an anti-hunger non-profit in NYC - providing food for people who did not have the resources to get enough nutritious food for themselves and/or their families. I've worked with job training, with community gardening and local food production, helped community organizing around primary health care and economic development, around literacy and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment and housing - you name it. Even the largest non-profits like hospitals and universities are organized around basic human needs, for health and information and knowledge-building. There are those that get computers to non-profits or to low-income people. Most non-profits seem to provide a service that no one can or will pay for. So it gets provided for free by a non-profit. And thus the motive isn't profit or wealth creation per se, but doing good, redistributing resources, ensuring that something valuable is available to everyone in society not just those with money.
Theoretically, I suppose a non-profit could organize around getting just about anything to anyone if you really wanted to create a disincentive to the profit motive. Today, the legal restrictions on non-profits mitigate against this. Non-profits are tax-exempt in the US and most of the world because they perform work for the public good, the public benefit. My understanding is that for-profits are taxed because they perform work for their own benefit or for the benefit of very few people. I just can't see a non-profit making and selling yachts to wealthy people. Making yachts for anyone to ride on, that I could see. But who's going to pay for it?
It's a conundrum, because we have a society and a global economy that is based on the currency of exchange, and the creation of wealth seems to be the engine for the system, with human nature the fuel. I wish people had less desire to have more and more and more. That seems to be a basic human characteristic, however. Those of us who have somehow moved out of the "more" syndrome have done so through years of work and self-examination. And speaking for myself, I slide back into it when I see something I like and want and can convince myself I "need." Eternal vigilance is the price I pay for enlightenment! :-)
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Organizational development
I've been reminiscing about my old bosses and my own experiences - and realizing that none of my bosses ever consciously applied the various motivational or job satisfaction tools. I knew that already, because when I became a boss, I looked on a few of them as "negative powers of example" as in "I'll do it differently." And I did, very consciously and deliberately, and with a lot of help.
About a year after I became Executive Director of City Harvest, the anti-hunger food rescue organization in NYC, I saw that the Support Center of NY (formed to help non-profits with management) was offering a workshop for new Executive Directors followed by a six-session Executive Director's Roundtable to go deeper into workshop lessons and discuss their application in a smaller group setting. Since I had only had mediocre bosses at best, I thought it would be good to learn something about how to be a better one. It's one of the best decisions I've ever made.
I stayed with the ED Roundtable for eight years. The woman who led it became my coach for 12 years. The other Roundtable members were coincidentally and then intentionally all women. They became my closest colleagues. We met once a month, each of us having time to present an issue, ask for the kind of help we needed (e.g. advice, listening, brainstorming, sympathy) and then get it. The group varied in size from six to eight; I was a member for 8 years and others for 1 to six years. I credit the Roundtable and my coach with my success in leading City Harvest for 11 years, because it was with them that I identified and then appropriately addressed various challenges.
For instance, I wanted to devote more organizational resources to developing people, to building a team ethos and environment, to establishing a "continuous improvement" work style. With the group and my coach's help, I developed a new position - Director of Organizational Development, responsible for human resources and everything associated with people. I purposely didn't use the term "Director of HR" because I'd encountered some awful ones along the way and I also didn't want the person to get bogged down in benefits and procedures. I wanted the person to see people as the essential components of the organization and to do everything required to motivate people to enroll in the City Harvest team, its culture, values and mission. That person reported directly to me, so the message to the organization was "this is really important."
Over time, that position evolved and changed but the general effect was the same: thoughtful consideration and application of leadership tools, including motivational and job satisfaction techniques. We (meaning the entire organization through a variety of methods) articulated core values and behaviors, integrated them into hiring and evaluation processes, used them in planning, etc. Strategic plan goals cascaded down through departments all the way to individual job descriptions. We had overall City Harvest team goals in several areas; when the organization met or exceeded them, everyone got a raise. To recognize individual performance, people also were give merit increases. I had monthly cross-function/multi-level small group "Javas with Julia" in the morning, for people to get to know each other and me better, air issues, get and give feedback. We had monthly staff meetings, planned to within an inch and designed to give everyone a chance to shine or participate. Staff gave each other recognition awards. We had fun and did team-building at annual one-day retreats. And more - all carefully considered and intentionally instituted and regularly reviewed (including surveying and chatting with staff).
It worked! Our results were phenomenal: 5-fold growth in funding and food distributed ($1.9 M to $10 M, 4.5 M lbs. of food to 23 M), 9-fold in people served (33,000 a week to 265,000 a week).
About a year after I became Executive Director of City Harvest, the anti-hunger food rescue organization in NYC, I saw that the Support Center of NY (formed to help non-profits with management) was offering a workshop for new Executive Directors followed by a six-session Executive Director's Roundtable to go deeper into workshop lessons and discuss their application in a smaller group setting. Since I had only had mediocre bosses at best, I thought it would be good to learn something about how to be a better one. It's one of the best decisions I've ever made.
I stayed with the ED Roundtable for eight years. The woman who led it became my coach for 12 years. The other Roundtable members were coincidentally and then intentionally all women. They became my closest colleagues. We met once a month, each of us having time to present an issue, ask for the kind of help we needed (e.g. advice, listening, brainstorming, sympathy) and then get it. The group varied in size from six to eight; I was a member for 8 years and others for 1 to six years. I credit the Roundtable and my coach with my success in leading City Harvest for 11 years, because it was with them that I identified and then appropriately addressed various challenges.
For instance, I wanted to devote more organizational resources to developing people, to building a team ethos and environment, to establishing a "continuous improvement" work style. With the group and my coach's help, I developed a new position - Director of Organizational Development, responsible for human resources and everything associated with people. I purposely didn't use the term "Director of HR" because I'd encountered some awful ones along the way and I also didn't want the person to get bogged down in benefits and procedures. I wanted the person to see people as the essential components of the organization and to do everything required to motivate people to enroll in the City Harvest team, its culture, values and mission. That person reported directly to me, so the message to the organization was "this is really important."
Over time, that position evolved and changed but the general effect was the same: thoughtful consideration and application of leadership tools, including motivational and job satisfaction techniques. We (meaning the entire organization through a variety of methods) articulated core values and behaviors, integrated them into hiring and evaluation processes, used them in planning, etc. Strategic plan goals cascaded down through departments all the way to individual job descriptions. We had overall City Harvest team goals in several areas; when the organization met or exceeded them, everyone got a raise. To recognize individual performance, people also were give merit increases. I had monthly cross-function/multi-level small group "Javas with Julia" in the morning, for people to get to know each other and me better, air issues, get and give feedback. We had monthly staff meetings, planned to within an inch and designed to give everyone a chance to shine or participate. Staff gave each other recognition awards. We had fun and did team-building at annual one-day retreats. And more - all carefully considered and intentionally instituted and regularly reviewed (including surveying and chatting with staff).
It worked! Our results were phenomenal: 5-fold growth in funding and food distributed ($1.9 M to $10 M, 4.5 M lbs. of food to 23 M), 9-fold in people served (33,000 a week to 265,000 a week).
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
direct mail intro
Throughout my career, I've done a lot of fundraising through direct response vehicles, especially the mail. Direct response does exactly what it says - goes to the donor to get a direct response to a request for a donation. Most of my experience is with direct mail, although I'm also familiar with direct response newspaper advertising (used to great effect in Europe where newspapers have distinct reader demographics and a tradition of newspaper "asks"), and a little with the emerging field of internet giving.
The wonderful thing about direct response is that we can collect lots and lots of data about who responds to what, over what period of time, with how much, at what time of year, etc. The first time a direct mail package is used, we mail to a fairly small set of potential donors in order to see what the response rate will be. An excellent response is that 1 to 1 1/2% of those who get a mailing actually send in a donation. At City Harvest, we once did a new donor acquisition mailing and got a 2.5% response rate - almost unheard of and quite celebrated in the non-profit direct mail universe (and much copied).
If a package gets a successful response, then you "roll out" the package to a much bigger group of potential donors (usually comprised of lists of donors to other charities). That becomes a "control package." It will remain the control package until another donor acquisition package exceeds its average response rate.
Testing new packages goes on all the time, always with small groups of potential donors. Other tests also are done, with potential and with current donors - envelope size, real stamp versus machine stamp, celebrity signer versus CEO, enclosing pictures or not, the list goes on and on. Only one thing is tested at a time, though - it's the only way to isolate what works or not.
One example: We tested whether to include a business reply envelope (with the organization paying for return postage) or provide an envelope that required someone to put on their own stamp. We found there was a slightly higher response rate to the no-stamp envelope - not statistically significant but enough to let us know that we could stop using BREs which cost us a lot of money. (Charities pay the postage AND a handling fee - it really does matter when you add your own postage).
The wonderful thing about direct response is that we can collect lots and lots of data about who responds to what, over what period of time, with how much, at what time of year, etc. The first time a direct mail package is used, we mail to a fairly small set of potential donors in order to see what the response rate will be. An excellent response is that 1 to 1 1/2% of those who get a mailing actually send in a donation. At City Harvest, we once did a new donor acquisition mailing and got a 2.5% response rate - almost unheard of and quite celebrated in the non-profit direct mail universe (and much copied).
If a package gets a successful response, then you "roll out" the package to a much bigger group of potential donors (usually comprised of lists of donors to other charities). That becomes a "control package." It will remain the control package until another donor acquisition package exceeds its average response rate.
Testing new packages goes on all the time, always with small groups of potential donors. Other tests also are done, with potential and with current donors - envelope size, real stamp versus machine stamp, celebrity signer versus CEO, enclosing pictures or not, the list goes on and on. Only one thing is tested at a time, though - it's the only way to isolate what works or not.
One example: We tested whether to include a business reply envelope (with the organization paying for return postage) or provide an envelope that required someone to put on their own stamp. We found there was a slightly higher response rate to the no-stamp envelope - not statistically significant but enough to let us know that we could stop using BREs which cost us a lot of money. (Charities pay the postage AND a handling fee - it really does matter when you add your own postage).
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Launch
Under my own name, at last, a blog. It's for my opinions, ideas, suggestions, themes, rants, poems, jokes. We'll see what appears. I think it will focus on the non-profit world, ethics, work and occupation. Politics? I'll try to focus it or at least separate topics. This could be the start of a website of my own. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
