Last week, I answered this question on LinkedIn posed by Frank G. Scarpaci of Project Designworks, a boutique management consulting firm headquartered in San Diego, CA.
What are the top three obstacles to effective nonprofit board governance?
My answer:
1. Board micromanagement because they don't trust management and perhaps they don't really understand how to manage and delegate.
2. Board members not understanding how non-profits operate and what their role is vis a vis management. Too often, Board members from the for-profit field believe they are smarter and more capable than the non-profit staff.
3. Chief Executives not being viewed as co-owners of the non-profit and respected as much as for-profit CEOs are respected. Non-profit CEO's are too often viewed as the "hired help."
My first two sentiments were echoed by most of the other 13 responses (see them at www.linkedin.com/answers/non-profit .
Lack of clear roles and expectations seems to be the primary obstacle to effective non-profit Board governance. This makes sense, given the history of non-profits - or charities as they were known originally. We basically are dealing with an anachronistic governance model that is based on condescension both to charity beneficiaries and charity staff.
When charitable institutions began in the mid-19th century, they were an evolution from volunteer efforts by wealthy men and sometimes women. In New York City, the first charity organization was the Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the Poor. Begun by a group of wealthy businessmen, the AICP grew out of "friendly visits" to poor families to identify and then ameliorate some of their problems as well as preach to them about the error of their ways. When these men realized they could no longer sustain their level of involvement, they began to hire women to carry out the visits, and they took on the role of Board of Governors. The role of that Board was to direct the daily work of the hired help. And being on this and other charitable Boards was very much like belonging to an exclusive club of insiders - socially desirable and prestigious, while not accountable to any larger group of stakeholders.
Other charities began with similar motives and assumptions about the role of the Board. Boards ran everything, and did not assume that their staff were professionals. It was only in the mid to late 20th century that charities became known as non-profits, and that staff were hired on the basis of their skills and expertise. While there were many causes for this - not least of which were emerging social issues that demanded attention and care - I believe Board members became increasingly unable to devote time to charitable work and the management of staff. It was necessary and easier to hire staff to which they could delegate the management of daily operations. Obviously, the Board members gave money to pay staff (as little as possible...) and to endow many organizations.
For example, the AICP evolved into the Community Service Society of NY which continues to this day funded in part by a multi-million dollar endowment. CSS has a refreshed mission - Fighting Poverty, Strengthening New York - and a highly skilled CEO (David R. Jones) and professional staff.
(For a great history of non-profit governance, see www.boardsource.org.)
In 1964, the American Bar Association drafted the Model Nonstock Corporation Statute, that changed the standards by which non-profit Boards operated to be similar to that of for-profit corporations. Boardsource says: "Nonprofits could do anything for-profits could do — except distribute their surpluses in the form of dividends." I'm sure this contributed to the growth of the idea that nonprofit organizations should be "run like a business." After all, if they are governed as corporations are, then shouldn't their management match their governance?
As non-profits proliferated and grew more complicated, they required more skilled managers. And professional managers disliked what they viewed as interference by Board members who could not possibly know much more than the surface facts about the organization's work.
This continues today, as non-profits grapple with society's most intractable and important issues, like hunger relief, housing, health care, education, violence prevention, youth development, child care, and more. Legal, ethical and practical concerns and mandates make the top management's work complex. Board members, who spend at most 10-20% of their time on charitable purposes, cannot hope to even begin to grasp the challenges and conundrums faced by management every minute of every day. Small wonder that executive leadership resents Board members who second-guess and question managerial decisions.
Further complicating matters is the radical cutback in government funding for many non-profits since the early 1980's. All of a sudden, non-profits had to get much better at raising money and delivering services, sometimes for a fee. And the primary role of Board members unofficially changed from overseeing management to raising money.
Yet the governance structure of CSS and every other non-profit remains basically untouched. Any Board member - regardless of his or her contribution level - gets an equal say in questioning management. No Board member is required by law to be a member of, knowledgeable about or accountable to the constituency served. Board members resist raising money until they are practically forced to give, get, or get off - usually by staff with reluctant support from the Board leadership. Giving and raising money How Board members are selected is usually a matter of who volunteers, who knows whom, and who has the most clout and access to resources.
The current governance system essentially requires nothing of Board members other than their willingness to show up at some meetings. Yet somehow this group of people is invested with amazing responsibility and power - both far greater than that possessed by paid staff. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service recommends an active Board of Directors:
The Internal Revenue Service encourages an active and engaged board believing that it is important to the success of a charity and to its compliance with applicable tax law requirements. Governing boards should be composed of persons who are informed and active in overseeing a charity’s operations and finances. If a governing board tolerates a climate of secrecy or neglect, we are concerned that charitable assets are more likely to be diverted to benefit the private interests of insiders at the expense of public and charitable interests. Successful governing boards include individuals who not only are knowledgeable and engaged, but selected with the organization’s needs in mind (e.g. accounting, finance, compensation, and ethics)... Organizations that file Form 990 will find that Part VI, Section A, Lines 1, 2 ,3, and 7 ask questions about the governing body.
Unfortunately, there is no oversight of non-profit Boards to ensure that this standard is met. The IRS does no monitoring except of whether an organization pays its payroll taxes and files its 990. Only non-payment of taxes gets an organization in trouble, though - and Boards are not held responsible while paid staff are. States' Attorneys General have legal oversight of non-profit fundraising but not of their Boards. Secretaries of State (or similar officials) approve incorporation, including checking to make sure there are the requisite minimum three incorporating Board members. But those Board members can be anyone over age 18. After incorporation, no one checks on anything.
There have been numerous scandals involving misuse of funds by paid executives of non-profit organizations. When those arise, other Boards of Directors tend to go into panic mode and increase the second-guessing and micro-management, as if this will help protect them from such embarrassment. For that really is the only consequence for Board members - embarrassment that they didn't have adequate oversight systems in place. Directors & Officers insurance protects Board members from most personal liability for any financial damage. There are no shareholders to vote Board members out of office. Consequences only come when other civic leaders and elected officials step in and demand that Boards resign and/or remake themselves. But no one can force these Boards to do that. If they refuse, there is no recourse. The only real punishment that can happen is for donors to pull out their funding or cease making contributions. I suppose there's a lot of good to a "market-based solution" yet somehow there's something wrong about so much money being entrusted to such unqualified people who have zero accountability.
John Carver developed a very interesting governance system, the Carver Policy Governance Model. I sat on the America's Second Harvest Board when it adopted that model. And in so many ways, it is a great model. Here's a description from the Carvergovernance.com website.
Policy Governance® is an integrated set of concepts and principles that describes the job of any governing board. It outlines the manner in which boards can be successful in their servant-leadership role, as well as in their all-important relationship with management. Unlike most solutions to the challenge of board leadership, its approach to the design of the governance role is neither structural nor piecemeal, but is comprehensively theory based. The model covers all legitimate intentions of corporate governance codes (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner.
In contrast to the approaches typically used by boards, Policy Governance separates issues of organizational purpose (ENDS) from all other organizational issues (MEANS), placing primary importance on those Ends. Policy Governance boards demand accomplishment of purpose, and only limit the staff's available means to those which do not violate the board's pre-stated standards of prudence and ethics.
Researchers Barbara E. Taylor, Richard P. Chait & Thomas P. Holland wrote in the September/October 1996 Harvard Business Review (“The New Work of the Nonprofit Board,” p 36):
“Too often, the board of a nonprofit organization is little more than a collection of high-powered people engaged in low-level activities. But that can change, the authors say, if trustees are willing to discover and take on the new work of the board. When they perform the new work, a board’s members can significantly advance the institution’s mission and long-term welfare. Doing the new work requires a board to engage in new practices. First, the board must go beyond rubber-stamping management’s proposals and find out what issues really matter to the institution.”
Taylor and colleagues characterise this “new work” as requiring finding out what matters which means board and management together determining the issues and the agenda, making the CEO deal with big ideas, having the board understand who the important stakeholders are and developing relationships with them, consulting many sources of knowledge and information, board and management together deciding what should and can be measured and what can’t and needn’t be and above all organising around and acting on what matters and not on what doesn’t! They also observe that many boards are too prone to focus on others for resisting change when they themselves are no different. Correctly they assert that entrepreneurs and industrial captains are seldom effective because they are unused to working with others cooperatively.
As the non-profit sector continues to grow, it is attracting more and more people who want to "make a difference." Many start on Boards and end up as staff. All of them say the same thing: "I never knew what a pain in the *** a Board could be! I apologize for all I did to staff." I wonder if there ever will be a non-profit governance structure that makes sense for all involved and affected parties.
PS Des Griffin from Australia has some interesting things to say about museum governance.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Networking or Information-Gathering?
Many people are very uncomfortable with "networking." I know this from two sources: the number of people who are peddling seminars and webinars and books to help others learn how to network effectively; and people in TransitionWorks who resist that step of the job search process.
Here's how I have approached the topic of networking.
The word "networking" can seem very big and overwhelming. On the other hand, talking to one person is specific and perhaps not as frightening. Dial it back to a place where you’re comfortable and not overwhelmed. Articulating specific next steps helps make it not overwhelming.
It helps me to think through exactly what might make me reluctant. Often it's fear. For me, fear can stem from attaching a lot of importance to the activity, and making the stakes REALLY high. So if I think that "networking" is going to lead either to my realizing my dreams or dashing my hopes - well, those are very high stakes and why on earth would I want to risk so much? Instead, I can think in smaller terms.
I like to think of specific tasks, next steps or people with whom I want to connect, instead of thinking about "NETWORKING." All I'm doing is finding out more about the field and work in which I'm interested. I'm simply connecting with a friend or former colleague or friend of a friend. I am taking an action that hopefully will have a small result - meaning I have an interesting conversation and possibly get the name and contact information for one more person with whom I can speak. The result isn't getting or not getting my dream job. That comes later, and the steps leading to that will all fall into place and make sense as they unfold. In other words, "take the action and let go of the result."
Perhaps I'll find, like one friend, that I'm uncomfortable making "cold calls" to people for the purposes of networking. In that case, let me see if I can find someone to make an introduction for me either in person or via e-mail. This one friend put it in these terms: "I need a warm introduction."
The same person also didn't know what she would say to people. Why on earth am I contacting them? I don't know if I want a job right now. HELP! She realized that all she has to say is "I'm thinking about changing jobs, and wanted to learn more about what you do. Would it be possible for us to have lunch or meet?" There's no commitment on her part, she's not asking for a job and putting the other person on the spot, and it's a very reasonable request that is easily accommodated.
We realized, too, that for her, networking implies that she is doing something for herself and is putting herself out into the world, perhaps exposing herself to an uncomfortable extent. I suggested that she think about the process as information-gathering, not networking. She liked that and said:
Networking is about putting yourself out there while information-gathering is about pulling information into you.
It satisfies her need for the meeting to be more about the other person and less about her and her needs. "Gathering information" is a format that lends itself to interviewing someone, asking questions to find out about the other person. Preparing a set of questions is helpful if you're not comfortable winging it. Most people will be happy to talk about themselves.
(I did caution my friend that she might have to ask women more than one question. for whatever reason, women often are much more aware of how much space and time we take up. Just think about how some men sit on the NYC subway - legs wide apart, taking up as much space as they want or think they need. I don't think I've seen more than two or three women do that in the 26 years I've ridden the NYC subways. In the same way, most women may need a prompting question or two to continue describing their experience - and take up the time and space they deserve.)
Here's how I have approached the topic of networking.
The word "networking" can seem very big and overwhelming. On the other hand, talking to one person is specific and perhaps not as frightening. Dial it back to a place where you’re comfortable and not overwhelmed. Articulating specific next steps helps make it not overwhelming.
It helps me to think through exactly what might make me reluctant. Often it's fear. For me, fear can stem from attaching a lot of importance to the activity, and making the stakes REALLY high. So if I think that "networking" is going to lead either to my realizing my dreams or dashing my hopes - well, those are very high stakes and why on earth would I want to risk so much? Instead, I can think in smaller terms.
I like to think of specific tasks, next steps or people with whom I want to connect, instead of thinking about "NETWORKING." All I'm doing is finding out more about the field and work in which I'm interested. I'm simply connecting with a friend or former colleague or friend of a friend. I am taking an action that hopefully will have a small result - meaning I have an interesting conversation and possibly get the name and contact information for one more person with whom I can speak. The result isn't getting or not getting my dream job. That comes later, and the steps leading to that will all fall into place and make sense as they unfold. In other words, "take the action and let go of the result."
Perhaps I'll find, like one friend, that I'm uncomfortable making "cold calls" to people for the purposes of networking. In that case, let me see if I can find someone to make an introduction for me either in person or via e-mail. This one friend put it in these terms: "I need a warm introduction."
The same person also didn't know what she would say to people. Why on earth am I contacting them? I don't know if I want a job right now. HELP! She realized that all she has to say is "I'm thinking about changing jobs, and wanted to learn more about what you do. Would it be possible for us to have lunch or meet?" There's no commitment on her part, she's not asking for a job and putting the other person on the spot, and it's a very reasonable request that is easily accommodated.
We realized, too, that for her, networking implies that she is doing something for herself and is putting herself out into the world, perhaps exposing herself to an uncomfortable extent. I suggested that she think about the process as information-gathering, not networking. She liked that and said:
Networking is about putting yourself out there while information-gathering is about pulling information into you.
It satisfies her need for the meeting to be more about the other person and less about her and her needs. "Gathering information" is a format that lends itself to interviewing someone, asking questions to find out about the other person. Preparing a set of questions is helpful if you're not comfortable winging it. Most people will be happy to talk about themselves.
(I did caution my friend that she might have to ask women more than one question. for whatever reason, women often are much more aware of how much space and time we take up. Just think about how some men sit on the NYC subway - legs wide apart, taking up as much space as they want or think they need. I don't think I've seen more than two or three women do that in the 26 years I've ridden the NYC subways. In the same way, most women may need a prompting question or two to continue describing their experience - and take up the time and space they deserve.)
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Clothes and Changing Jobs
Having a dispiriting job is difficult - I often would say "here I am having to be on my best game at the very time I feel so depressed and worthless." That's where "acting as if" comes in. If I change a single thing about my attitude or behavior, there can be ripple effects into the rest of my life. At very least, I'll get new information to notice.
One of the things I've noticed is that dressing well is an essential part of "acting as if" and "envisioning the desired end state" - the way to get to our intention and goal.
There's an expression: "I build self-esteem by doing "esteemable" things." For example, I started years ago making my bed in the morning, as an estimable thing to do. When I walked into my bedroom at night, it looked neat and ready for a new night's sleep. When I didn't make my bed, I felt a little lazy and disappointed in myself, and then at night it felt like I'd never left, as though I missed an entire day. I found myself saying "oh, I don't care" in order to help myself feel OK about not doing that simple thing. And the "I don't care" attitude then got permission to permeate my life. Whereas when I did make the bed, I demonstrated to myself that I DO care, and then that got permission to permeate my life. I do care about how I look, I do care about the work I do, I do care about where I live, I do care about my quality of life and my emotional health and physical health.
After turning 30, I gained a lot of weight and started wearing boring, boxy, neutral clothes in an effort to disappear. Of course, I never did disappear. Unfortunately, I communicated that wish to disappear to the rest of the world and to my psyche. The underlying message? I was ashamed of myself. I didn't care about myself. Other people picked up on my lack of self-esteem. While I'm not certain how that translated into how people treated me, I did sense disrespect and disregard.
Then I started dressing better - nicer quality clothes, more flattering styles, bolder colors, fun shoes, jewelry. I began to feel better about myself, more worthy, more capable, more respected. And about 9 months after I made that shift, I got the job as Executive Director of City Harvest. Plus I'd lost some weight.
I find that when I dress well, I often start to lose weight. And even if I don't, I still look good. I cease being ashamed of myself and no longer want to hide out - simply because I am demonstrating to myself (and the world, against which opinion I still do judge myself) that I care about myself and how I look. I am acknowledging that I am NOT invisible, much as I might pretend I am.
What's key about clothes is that they are something we really can do something about right now, even if we don't have the body or job or house or commute or partner we want. It's totally within our control, right now. So I find it a powerful tool for acting as if I matter, as if I'm worth more than my negative voices tell me I am worth.
That means I don't necessarily have to believe I'm worth it, I just have to act as if I believe it. New action can lead to changed beliefs. If I act (read: dress) as if I'm confident, I may start believing I am. (It's often summarized as "dress for success" - I just get there from the long way around.)
Small changes in what one wears can produce big changes in what one thinks of herself. My sister, for example, never wore jewelry. Through an at-home jewelry party, she bought some. Now she has a bunch of necklaces and earrings, and feels so polished and professional when she wears them. I see a different confidence, a feeling that she's special somehow. Just yesterday, I told her how nice she looked and wondered if she was going somewhere. She wasn't and she didn't feel dressed up, but she was wearing a necklace and it just transformed her appearance. It was an example of how a single change in behavior and dress can completely change how people perceive one as well as one's self-perception.
So go for it! Buy something a little scary to wear - a blue top in one of those teal, turquoise or pool shades. A deep coral skirt or pair of pants. A chunky necklace (if you wear jewelry - and if you don't and you're not constitutionally uncomfortable with it, start wearing some!) or noticeable pair of earrings. Or a long, bright scarf draped around your neck. Some bright shoes - green or deep pink. A scoop or deep V neckline. Even a sheath dress in black or navy with a great necklace. It doesn't matter what your style is, as long as you step a little out of your comfort zone.
Oh, and when people compliment you, just smile and say "thank you!" Eventually, you will be comfortable with the compliments - because your own self-esteem will have risen to match your estimable outward appearance.
One of the things I've noticed is that dressing well is an essential part of "acting as if" and "envisioning the desired end state" - the way to get to our intention and goal.
There's an expression: "I build self-esteem by doing "esteemable" things." For example, I started years ago making my bed in the morning, as an estimable thing to do. When I walked into my bedroom at night, it looked neat and ready for a new night's sleep. When I didn't make my bed, I felt a little lazy and disappointed in myself, and then at night it felt like I'd never left, as though I missed an entire day. I found myself saying "oh, I don't care" in order to help myself feel OK about not doing that simple thing. And the "I don't care" attitude then got permission to permeate my life. Whereas when I did make the bed, I demonstrated to myself that I DO care, and then that got permission to permeate my life. I do care about how I look, I do care about the work I do, I do care about where I live, I do care about my quality of life and my emotional health and physical health.
After turning 30, I gained a lot of weight and started wearing boring, boxy, neutral clothes in an effort to disappear. Of course, I never did disappear. Unfortunately, I communicated that wish to disappear to the rest of the world and to my psyche. The underlying message? I was ashamed of myself. I didn't care about myself. Other people picked up on my lack of self-esteem. While I'm not certain how that translated into how people treated me, I did sense disrespect and disregard.
Then I started dressing better - nicer quality clothes, more flattering styles, bolder colors, fun shoes, jewelry. I began to feel better about myself, more worthy, more capable, more respected. And about 9 months after I made that shift, I got the job as Executive Director of City Harvest. Plus I'd lost some weight.
I find that when I dress well, I often start to lose weight. And even if I don't, I still look good. I cease being ashamed of myself and no longer want to hide out - simply because I am demonstrating to myself (and the world, against which opinion I still do judge myself) that I care about myself and how I look. I am acknowledging that I am NOT invisible, much as I might pretend I am.
What's key about clothes is that they are something we really can do something about right now, even if we don't have the body or job or house or commute or partner we want. It's totally within our control, right now. So I find it a powerful tool for acting as if I matter, as if I'm worth more than my negative voices tell me I am worth.
That means I don't necessarily have to believe I'm worth it, I just have to act as if I believe it. New action can lead to changed beliefs. If I act (read: dress) as if I'm confident, I may start believing I am. (It's often summarized as "dress for success" - I just get there from the long way around.)
Small changes in what one wears can produce big changes in what one thinks of herself. My sister, for example, never wore jewelry. Through an at-home jewelry party, she bought some. Now she has a bunch of necklaces and earrings, and feels so polished and professional when she wears them. I see a different confidence, a feeling that she's special somehow. Just yesterday, I told her how nice she looked and wondered if she was going somewhere. She wasn't and she didn't feel dressed up, but she was wearing a necklace and it just transformed her appearance. It was an example of how a single change in behavior and dress can completely change how people perceive one as well as one's self-perception.
So go for it! Buy something a little scary to wear - a blue top in one of those teal, turquoise or pool shades. A deep coral skirt or pair of pants. A chunky necklace (if you wear jewelry - and if you don't and you're not constitutionally uncomfortable with it, start wearing some!) or noticeable pair of earrings. Or a long, bright scarf draped around your neck. Some bright shoes - green or deep pink. A scoop or deep V neckline. Even a sheath dress in black or navy with a great necklace. It doesn't matter what your style is, as long as you step a little out of your comfort zone.
Oh, and when people compliment you, just smile and say "thank you!" Eventually, you will be comfortable with the compliments - because your own self-esteem will have risen to match your estimable outward appearance.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Semantic Web
Among my eclectic interests is the semantic web. What, you may ask, is that? According to Project10X's (www.project10X.com ) Semantic Wave 2008 Report: Industry Roadmap to Web 3.0 & Multibillion Dollar Market Opportunities (February 2008), the semantic web is Web 3.0. They define it thus:
The next stage, Web 3.0, is starting now. It is about representing meanings, connecting knowledge, and putting these to work in ways that make our experience of internet more relevant, useful, and enjoyable....Over the next decade, Web 3.0 will spawn multi-billion dollar technology markets that will drive trillion dollar global economic expansions to transform industries as well as our experience of the internet....The basic shift occurring in Web 3.0 is from information-centric to knowledge-centric patterns of computing. Web 3.0 will enable people and machines to connect, evolve, share, and use knowledge on an unprecedented scale and in new ways that make our experience of the internet better....When knowledge is encoded in a semantic form, it becomes transparent and accessible at any time to a variety of reasoning engines.
My friend Eric Hoffer has a blog that discusses semantic technology as a tool to use in business and life (click on the headline to get to his site). One of the people he refers to is Dave McComb of Semantic Arts who gave an excellent introductory presentation at the recent Semantic Technology Conference on the west coast. He says that the possibilities of the semantic web are to:
1) augment existing information - combining anything we know with other things we know and deriving inferences based on what we know.
2) give us freedom from tyranny of traditional schema - allowing us to access information in a variety of ways.
3) provide a way to get past keywords as the approach to search, with all their limitations.
Honestly, I don't really understand all of this. However. I am convinced that this is the kind of technology that will help change the world. So I'm following it and linking up to people who are doing the same.
The next stage, Web 3.0, is starting now. It is about representing meanings, connecting knowledge, and putting these to work in ways that make our experience of internet more relevant, useful, and enjoyable....Over the next decade, Web 3.0 will spawn multi-billion dollar technology markets that will drive trillion dollar global economic expansions to transform industries as well as our experience of the internet....The basic shift occurring in Web 3.0 is from information-centric to knowledge-centric patterns of computing. Web 3.0 will enable people and machines to connect, evolve, share, and use knowledge on an unprecedented scale and in new ways that make our experience of the internet better....When knowledge is encoded in a semantic form, it becomes transparent and accessible at any time to a variety of reasoning engines.
My friend Eric Hoffer has a blog that discusses semantic technology as a tool to use in business and life (click on the headline to get to his site). One of the people he refers to is Dave McComb of Semantic Arts who gave an excellent introductory presentation at the recent Semantic Technology Conference on the west coast. He says that the possibilities of the semantic web are to:
1) augment existing information - combining anything we know with other things we know and deriving inferences based on what we know.
2) give us freedom from tyranny of traditional schema - allowing us to access information in a variety of ways.
3) provide a way to get past keywords as the approach to search, with all their limitations.
Honestly, I don't really understand all of this. However. I am convinced that this is the kind of technology that will help change the world. So I'm following it and linking up to people who are doing the same.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Focusing on the Next Step
Today's New York Times covered Ana Ivanovic's French Open win yesterday. Last year, Ivanovic made it to the finals where she was soundly defeated by Justine Henin - and her own mental state. Her nerves undid her, as they did also this year in her Australian Open final loss to Maria Sharapova. She says:
I had a few sleepless nights after that, honestly. Part of me was already thinking about possibly holding the trophy, you know.
Then she talks about what was different for her at the French Open.
So this time, I really tried to change that and don't think about that at all and just focus on my game. There were some moments where this thought would still come up, but I managed to control it much better.
What a powerful statement of self-awareness and focus! it's a fantastic illustration of how critical it is for us to focus only on the next step in a process instead of on the result. When Ivanovic thought about the future, she was unable to be fully in the present, to keep her focus on the crucial step of playing her best game.
Fortunately for her, Ivanovic was capable of and willing to examine her losses and learn from them. Her example underscores the value of examining one's thoughts, actions and results to determine how they are all related. Ivanovic clearly identified the key thought that caused her problems, and then worked to quiet it. While she doesn't describe how she controlled her focus on holding the trophy, my guess is she refocused on being in the now and on the next action - her serve, her return, her strategy for the next shot, observing her opponent, and watching the ball's movement.
When I talk to people who hope to change jobs, I counsel them to focus on getting interviews rather than on getting a job. The interview is the next step in the process, after you identify your ideal job and crafts a resume that markets you to get such a job.
Getting the interview gives you a chance to see whether the job is actually a "right fit" for you. Too often, people dismiss a job at first glance because they don't like the job title, or they had a negative experience with a similar organization, or they assume the salary is too low - any number of reasons. However, if there was anything in the job that attracted them and nothing that specifically contradicts several of your "must have" list, I suggest that the person apply and see if s/he gets the interview. If nothing else, you can never have too many interviews. And what a great thing it is to be able to practice your interview skills for jobs you may not want or care about!
Ideally, the interview is the place to find out more about a particular job, to gather the information needed to see whether you want to continue pursuing the opportunity. Yes, the interviewers also are evaluating you and they may decide you aren't right for the job. In that case, be glad that you know now rather than continuing through a process even further. If the interviewers do want to see you again, also be glad for the chance to learn even more about the job and to further explore whether the job is a right fit.
In my experience, titles are usually negotiable, salary ranges often depend on the candidate's qualifications and can be stretched for the right person, and every organization is different with a different culture.
One person almost didn't apply for a job with an international organization because she had a disappointing experience with another one with a similar mission and name. The previous organization offered her less money than she needed and wanted, was inflexible on the title, and had a culture that was less than welcoming to her as an African-American woman.
Fortunately, she focused on simply getting an interview with the second organization. During the interview process, she got more and more excited by the position and the organization. Its culture was significantly different, its staff much more diverse, the title exactly what she wanted, and the money very close to her minimum needs. The job was a "right fit" for her, after all, and the organization felt the same about her.
When last I saw her for lunch, she was glowing. She loves her job, the people she works with, the organizational mission and culture, and her future possibilities.
She is a perfect example of how great results can happen when one focuses on the next step instead of on the possible outcome. It's incredibly powerful to stay in the now rather than dream about the future.
I had a few sleepless nights after that, honestly. Part of me was already thinking about possibly holding the trophy, you know.
Then she talks about what was different for her at the French Open.
So this time, I really tried to change that and don't think about that at all and just focus on my game. There were some moments where this thought would still come up, but I managed to control it much better.
What a powerful statement of self-awareness and focus! it's a fantastic illustration of how critical it is for us to focus only on the next step in a process instead of on the result. When Ivanovic thought about the future, she was unable to be fully in the present, to keep her focus on the crucial step of playing her best game.
Fortunately for her, Ivanovic was capable of and willing to examine her losses and learn from them. Her example underscores the value of examining one's thoughts, actions and results to determine how they are all related. Ivanovic clearly identified the key thought that caused her problems, and then worked to quiet it. While she doesn't describe how she controlled her focus on holding the trophy, my guess is she refocused on being in the now and on the next action - her serve, her return, her strategy for the next shot, observing her opponent, and watching the ball's movement.
When I talk to people who hope to change jobs, I counsel them to focus on getting interviews rather than on getting a job. The interview is the next step in the process, after you identify your ideal job and crafts a resume that markets you to get such a job.
Getting the interview gives you a chance to see whether the job is actually a "right fit" for you. Too often, people dismiss a job at first glance because they don't like the job title, or they had a negative experience with a similar organization, or they assume the salary is too low - any number of reasons. However, if there was anything in the job that attracted them and nothing that specifically contradicts several of your "must have" list, I suggest that the person apply and see if s/he gets the interview. If nothing else, you can never have too many interviews. And what a great thing it is to be able to practice your interview skills for jobs you may not want or care about!
Ideally, the interview is the place to find out more about a particular job, to gather the information needed to see whether you want to continue pursuing the opportunity. Yes, the interviewers also are evaluating you and they may decide you aren't right for the job. In that case, be glad that you know now rather than continuing through a process even further. If the interviewers do want to see you again, also be glad for the chance to learn even more about the job and to further explore whether the job is a right fit.
In my experience, titles are usually negotiable, salary ranges often depend on the candidate's qualifications and can be stretched for the right person, and every organization is different with a different culture.
One person almost didn't apply for a job with an international organization because she had a disappointing experience with another one with a similar mission and name. The previous organization offered her less money than she needed and wanted, was inflexible on the title, and had a culture that was less than welcoming to her as an African-American woman.
Fortunately, she focused on simply getting an interview with the second organization. During the interview process, she got more and more excited by the position and the organization. Its culture was significantly different, its staff much more diverse, the title exactly what she wanted, and the money very close to her minimum needs. The job was a "right fit" for her, after all, and the organization felt the same about her.
When last I saw her for lunch, she was glowing. She loves her job, the people she works with, the organizational mission and culture, and her future possibilities.
She is a perfect example of how great results can happen when one focuses on the next step instead of on the possible outcome. It's incredibly powerful to stay in the now rather than dream about the future.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Finding Staff Who Are a "Cultural Fit"
A fellow Maplewoodian posted a fascinating piece on how a new client of his works to find staff that are a cultural fit. Look at www.transitionworks.org for the essential questions they ask.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Having a Conversation to Resolve Conflict
There are tools to use to have a good conversation with someone else – no matter how angry and seemingly intractable they appear. It’s all about really listening to the person – “active listening” is a key tool – and getting very clear about what happened and what could help resolve it now and in the future. By the end of the conversation, you and the other person optimally would be allies in solving the problem. It requires great patience and stretching beyond your comfort zone. And you can do it.
The key to resolving conflict is to do it with the people who are directly involved. E-mail is a no-no. In person, face-to-face conversation is the best method. Once you all have established relationships based on trust, phone conversations can be used. To build trust, you have to talk to people directly, in person.
If all parties involved stop listening to each other and refuse to accommodate one another, a no-win situation exists. This is a classic stand-off situation. Someone has to make the first move. Making the first move is difficult when one is “sensitive to conflict” – it’s very scary to approach someone who has expressed his/her anger or displeasure in some way. Yet that’s exactly what has to happen.
The Process
1. Approach the person to ask if they have some time to talk, either then or within a day. Remember, you’re asking them for something, not making a demand.
2. Thank them for making the time (whenever it is).
3. When you begin talking, start by summarizing what you believe is the immediate problem. For example, “I wanted to talk to you about the recent meeting. When I read your e-mail, I got it that you were upset at not being informed about it. I also read that you wish we had a better process for communicating these things.”
It’s critical that you use “I” statements. You have no idea what they mean, how they feel, what they intend. And if the person is angry, s/he will really get angry if you try to tell them what they meant. So instead of saying “You were really upset about that” you can say “It seemed to me that the situation upset you.” This phrasing depersonalizes it for the other person and allows them to validate your perception or not.
4. Immediately follow this statement with a question to check out the validity of your perception. “Have I understood your concerns?”
5. Allow the person their response:
Anger - “NO! you don’t understand” – you can say “I want to understand. Can you explain it to me again?” When they’ve expressed it again, say “I hear you saying…xyz. Is that what you mean?” Your goal is to get them to agree that you have understood what they are saying.
Acceptance – “Yes, that’s it.” – you say, “Great. I’m glad I understand.”
Correction – “you’ve got part of it, but not all of it” – you can say “What haven’t I understood?”
When they say the clarification, repeat it after them saying “This is what I hear you saying…abc. Is that right?”
6. Whatever the response, you want to get to the point where you understand the other person’s issue to that other person’s satisfaction. Repeating back to them what they’ve said is the key to “active listening” – it’s also known as “mirroring.”
7. Once you both are on the same page, you can say “I’m sorry this happened. And I wonder if there is something I can do now to rectify the situation – if not this one, then in the future.” You’re hoping to learn from them what they need. You can even ask directly “what do you need from me in the future in a similar situation?”
8. Again, allow them their response. Usually by this time, the person isn’t as angry. If s/he still is angry, the chances are s/he won’t want to “fix you” or “tell you how to make it better.” If that’s the case, your next step is to suggest something you could have done. For example, “would it have helped if I sent out a notice to the senior management group after my initial conversation?”
9. If the person isn’t angry and does answer your question, use the “mirroring” technique again to clarify.
10. When you think you both understand what the solution is, summarize it. “So here’s what I think we agreed: xxx. Did I get it all?” Somehow, check it out with the other person.
11. You then make a commitment to the person. “OK, I commit to letting you know well in advance of anything that is likely to need the male health educators. And I also commit to talking it over with you to make sure I get your ideas and that the timing works with your health education schedule. How does that sound?” Get the other person’s to agree your commitment will meet his/her needs.
If you can’t make that commitment, make another one. Say clearly, “I will try to talk to you individually but it might not always be possible. However, I will definitely bring it up at a senior management meeting and get your input there.” Again, get the other person’s agreement.
12. Hopefully, by this time, you can then make a suggestion about a process or system that could be applied across the group. For example, “Do you think it would be useful to talk about this situation with the others in the senior management group, so we can all figure out how to communicate better with each other?”
If the other person agrees, you two can work together to draft a short agenda item and send it to Lorraine to get her to put it on the group meeting agenda. (All group members have the ability to put items on the agenda, I believe. Optimally, those agendas will be distributed before the meeting so people have a chance to think about the various topics. It will make the meetings more efficient.)
Remember:
• Pay no attention to their body language. Pay attention to your own. Sit with feet on floor and hands on table. Avoid crossing arms and legs. Look the person in the eye.
• Bring a piece of paper and a pen in case you are moved to write something down. It helps the other person feel heard.
• Focus on what the other person is saying. Avoid thinking about your response. Avoid defensiveness. Avoid accusation. Focus on solving the problem.
• Keep your focus on the goal – resolving conflict, building trust, and establishing forward movement for your relationship and possibly for the entire group.
The key to resolving conflict is to do it with the people who are directly involved. E-mail is a no-no. In person, face-to-face conversation is the best method. Once you all have established relationships based on trust, phone conversations can be used. To build trust, you have to talk to people directly, in person.
If all parties involved stop listening to each other and refuse to accommodate one another, a no-win situation exists. This is a classic stand-off situation. Someone has to make the first move. Making the first move is difficult when one is “sensitive to conflict” – it’s very scary to approach someone who has expressed his/her anger or displeasure in some way. Yet that’s exactly what has to happen.
The Process
1. Approach the person to ask if they have some time to talk, either then or within a day. Remember, you’re asking them for something, not making a demand.
2. Thank them for making the time (whenever it is).
3. When you begin talking, start by summarizing what you believe is the immediate problem. For example, “I wanted to talk to you about the recent meeting. When I read your e-mail, I got it that you were upset at not being informed about it. I also read that you wish we had a better process for communicating these things.”
It’s critical that you use “I” statements. You have no idea what they mean, how they feel, what they intend. And if the person is angry, s/he will really get angry if you try to tell them what they meant. So instead of saying “You were really upset about that” you can say “It seemed to me that the situation upset you.” This phrasing depersonalizes it for the other person and allows them to validate your perception or not.
4. Immediately follow this statement with a question to check out the validity of your perception. “Have I understood your concerns?”
5. Allow the person their response:
Anger - “NO! you don’t understand” – you can say “I want to understand. Can you explain it to me again?” When they’ve expressed it again, say “I hear you saying…xyz. Is that what you mean?” Your goal is to get them to agree that you have understood what they are saying.
Acceptance – “Yes, that’s it.” – you say, “Great. I’m glad I understand.”
Correction – “you’ve got part of it, but not all of it” – you can say “What haven’t I understood?”
When they say the clarification, repeat it after them saying “This is what I hear you saying…abc. Is that right?”
6. Whatever the response, you want to get to the point where you understand the other person’s issue to that other person’s satisfaction. Repeating back to them what they’ve said is the key to “active listening” – it’s also known as “mirroring.”
7. Once you both are on the same page, you can say “I’m sorry this happened. And I wonder if there is something I can do now to rectify the situation – if not this one, then in the future.” You’re hoping to learn from them what they need. You can even ask directly “what do you need from me in the future in a similar situation?”
8. Again, allow them their response. Usually by this time, the person isn’t as angry. If s/he still is angry, the chances are s/he won’t want to “fix you” or “tell you how to make it better.” If that’s the case, your next step is to suggest something you could have done. For example, “would it have helped if I sent out a notice to the senior management group after my initial conversation?”
9. If the person isn’t angry and does answer your question, use the “mirroring” technique again to clarify.
10. When you think you both understand what the solution is, summarize it. “So here’s what I think we agreed: xxx. Did I get it all?” Somehow, check it out with the other person.
11. You then make a commitment to the person. “OK, I commit to letting you know well in advance of anything that is likely to need the male health educators. And I also commit to talking it over with you to make sure I get your ideas and that the timing works with your health education schedule. How does that sound?” Get the other person’s to agree your commitment will meet his/her needs.
If you can’t make that commitment, make another one. Say clearly, “I will try to talk to you individually but it might not always be possible. However, I will definitely bring it up at a senior management meeting and get your input there.” Again, get the other person’s agreement.
12. Hopefully, by this time, you can then make a suggestion about a process or system that could be applied across the group. For example, “Do you think it would be useful to talk about this situation with the others in the senior management group, so we can all figure out how to communicate better with each other?”
If the other person agrees, you two can work together to draft a short agenda item and send it to Lorraine to get her to put it on the group meeting agenda. (All group members have the ability to put items on the agenda, I believe. Optimally, those agendas will be distributed before the meeting so people have a chance to think about the various topics. It will make the meetings more efficient.)
Remember:
• Pay no attention to their body language. Pay attention to your own. Sit with feet on floor and hands on table. Avoid crossing arms and legs. Look the person in the eye.
• Bring a piece of paper and a pen in case you are moved to write something down. It helps the other person feel heard.
• Focus on what the other person is saying. Avoid thinking about your response. Avoid defensiveness. Avoid accusation. Focus on solving the problem.
• Keep your focus on the goal – resolving conflict, building trust, and establishing forward movement for your relationship and possibly for the entire group.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Thinking Through an Offer of Coaching
A recent acquaintance of mine who lives in Scotland is hoping to relocate to the US. She apparently has a line of a job in HR - her current field - as well as an offer of coaching to help her pursue her dream of becoming a Life Coach. She asked my help in evaluating the coaching offer. Here's part of what I wrote:
That's exciting about a job in HR in the US - it's a great way to start you on your way to realizing your dream. Being in HR can give you tremendous credibility as you start on your coaching path. It will be important to think about how to package your experience as particularly relevant to coaching and helping people reach their own goals and dreams.
That's part of the context in which I'd assess the coaching offer. First, I would say that to my mind it doesn't matter whether you have a US-based coach or not. I do think you will have to have a coach, in order to have the experience of being coached - for three reasons.
1) You can use the support of having a coach help you set goals and reach them.
2) It's a GREAT learning experience! You will learn an enormous amount about how to coach from your coach - techniques and tools, philosophy, things that work and don't work with you (and possibly with your clients), getting a feel for the way a coach facilitates your own process of setting and reaching goals, the shifts you need to make in response to a client's shifts, etc.
3) Your prospective clients will be impressed and more comfortable because they know you are experienced in the coaching process.
A possible 4th reason is that by having a coach certified by the International Coaching Federation (ICF), you will be set up to meet one of its qualifications if you decide to go to coaching school and get ICF certification yourself. This link tells you the why and how of ICF credentialing at various levels. Click on the PDF version to read it. www.coachfederation.org
You'll see that being coached is part of the package, either as part of your coaching program or to submit as part of a "Portfolio" application for people who don't study in an ICF-accredited program. Also, you'll need 2 recommendations from qualified coaches, meaning ICF-certified coaches. So if you're interested in becoming certified, make SURE this coach has ICF credentials.
Here are some other things to consider in terms of evaluating this coaching opportunity:
* What kind of business do you envision yourself creating? Your own business from the beginning, or starting out under the auspices of another entity? There are certainly more and more entities that use coaches - and it could be a good way to start. Examples are: www.mylifecompass.com , www.michelangelomethod.com and www.successtracs.com. It's not as widespread as I think it will be in the future - maybe that's a goal? To set up your own coaching company with other coaches? Dream big!
* Does the prospective coach has experience similar to what you envision? Is s/he part of a larger organization or does s/he work on their own? If the experience is different, can s/he point you to other people, can s/he be a good resource for you? If s/he knows the coaching process well, then s/he should be able to help you reach your goals.
* Has this a person reached his/her own goals? Get a bio. How did s/he start? Did s/he have to weave their past experience into a set of credentials to set up their own coaching business? If you have a choice, choose someone who started as a coach in a way similar to how you'd like to start.
* Does this person work with and understand entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship? Being a Life Coach is essentially an entrepreneurial enterprise, and it would be ideal if not essential to have someone familiar with the processes and tools of setting up an enterprise. Some coaches focus only on coaching people to reach goals within a workplace - that's not your issue (unfortunately, there are very few executive coaches on staff anywhere, although that may change over time).
Usually, the first session is a free one to check for "chemistry." That's the time to ask these questions. If the chemistry isn't right, move on. The experience will move you that much closer to getting the right coach for you.
I hope this is helpful to you as you assess this offer. I will say that the price is reasonable so if you can afford it, go for it. I suggest that you wait until you get an offer in the US - if the offer will still stand, great. If it won't, you certainly can find someone else to help you.
That's exciting about a job in HR in the US - it's a great way to start you on your way to realizing your dream. Being in HR can give you tremendous credibility as you start on your coaching path. It will be important to think about how to package your experience as particularly relevant to coaching and helping people reach their own goals and dreams.
That's part of the context in which I'd assess the coaching offer. First, I would say that to my mind it doesn't matter whether you have a US-based coach or not. I do think you will have to have a coach, in order to have the experience of being coached - for three reasons.
1) You can use the support of having a coach help you set goals and reach them.
2) It's a GREAT learning experience! You will learn an enormous amount about how to coach from your coach - techniques and tools, philosophy, things that work and don't work with you (and possibly with your clients), getting a feel for the way a coach facilitates your own process of setting and reaching goals, the shifts you need to make in response to a client's shifts, etc.
3) Your prospective clients will be impressed and more comfortable because they know you are experienced in the coaching process.
A possible 4th reason is that by having a coach certified by the International Coaching Federation (ICF), you will be set up to meet one of its qualifications if you decide to go to coaching school and get ICF certification yourself. This link tells you the why and how of ICF credentialing at various levels. Click on the PDF version to read it. www.coachfederation.org
You'll see that being coached is part of the package, either as part of your coaching program or to submit as part of a "Portfolio" application for people who don't study in an ICF-accredited program. Also, you'll need 2 recommendations from qualified coaches, meaning ICF-certified coaches. So if you're interested in becoming certified, make SURE this coach has ICF credentials.
Here are some other things to consider in terms of evaluating this coaching opportunity:
* What kind of business do you envision yourself creating? Your own business from the beginning, or starting out under the auspices of another entity? There are certainly more and more entities that use coaches - and it could be a good way to start. Examples are: www.mylifecompass.com , www.michelangelomethod.com and www.successtracs.com. It's not as widespread as I think it will be in the future - maybe that's a goal? To set up your own coaching company with other coaches? Dream big!
* Does the prospective coach has experience similar to what you envision? Is s/he part of a larger organization or does s/he work on their own? If the experience is different, can s/he point you to other people, can s/he be a good resource for you? If s/he knows the coaching process well, then s/he should be able to help you reach your goals.
* Has this a person reached his/her own goals? Get a bio. How did s/he start? Did s/he have to weave their past experience into a set of credentials to set up their own coaching business? If you have a choice, choose someone who started as a coach in a way similar to how you'd like to start.
* Does this person work with and understand entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship? Being a Life Coach is essentially an entrepreneurial enterprise, and it would be ideal if not essential to have someone familiar with the processes and tools of setting up an enterprise. Some coaches focus only on coaching people to reach goals within a workplace - that's not your issue (unfortunately, there are very few executive coaches on staff anywhere, although that may change over time).
Usually, the first session is a free one to check for "chemistry." That's the time to ask these questions. If the chemistry isn't right, move on. The experience will move you that much closer to getting the right coach for you.
I hope this is helpful to you as you assess this offer. I will say that the price is reasonable so if you can afford it, go for it. I suggest that you wait until you get an offer in the US - if the offer will still stand, great. If it won't, you certainly can find someone else to help you.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Preparing for Meetings with New Bosses
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.
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
