Month: April 2010

Posted on

Is a “Working Board” an Immature Board?

A board meeting of working board members

(The following post applies as much to for-profit Boards as nonprofit Boards — many for-profit Boards, especially in family-owned corporations, operate as working Boards.)

A “working Board” is a personality of a governing Board. There is no clear delineation as to what’s a definitely a working Board or not. However, it’s commonly viewed as a Board where members are doing a lot of staff-related (or employee-related) activities. New organizations often have a working Board.

I sometimes get calls from consultants wanting advice about certain situations when they’re working with Boards. It’s not uncommon that they’ll comment that a Board is a working Board and therefore needs to mature to a “policy Board” where members attend exclusively to strategic priorities and decisions. I often disagree with that assumption.

It’s fine to have a working Board — as long as Board members are also attending to more strategic decisions. So it’s OK that they might be fixing the fax machine one day. However, later on, they should also be discussing the purpose of the organization and its most important priorities.

The personality of a Board depends more on what the organization wants to accomplish than on any natural order that the Board must evolve to a policy Board. The more the organization wants to accomplish in its markets or its communities, the higher the likelihood that more resources will be needed (including more paid staff) to do that, and the higher the likelihood that the Board will need more attention to governing the increasing range and complexity of resources. Thus, the more the organization wants to accomplish, the higher the likelihood that a Board will evolve from a working Board to a policy Board.

Some very smart people have decided that they’d rather their organization was “a rifle than a shotgun” — that it do a few things very well, rather than a lot of things not so well. Those people will have carefully scoped what they want their organization to accomplish using a limited amount of resources. So those very smart people might have a working Board — a Board that does not need to “mature” into a policy Board.

What do you think?

———————————————————————————
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

Posted on

Awards R Us

Golden Statuette and Stars on Yellow Background

There are awards for everything and you don’t have too look far to find them. Why just this week there were four award-related pieces of business on Media Savant’s radar. The first was a Media Alert drafted for the news about Token Media (http://www.token.com/shortfilms) and its film-making crew (that extends into the greater Twin Cities community) winning the national 48-Hour short film festival and having another film place first runner-up in the world (out of 3,000 entries). The second was a request from some ad agency pals at Morsekode (www.Moresekode.com) wanting their peeps to vote for them in the annual Webby Awards (come, on, help ‘em out by clicking on Healthcare Lane at: http://webby.aol.com/services/insurance !)

The third was drafting an award announcement for Creative Water Solutions, the coolest natural, greenest water conditioning/treatment company in the world (www.cwsnaturally.com). It recently won two awards for its game-changing use of sphagnum moss to dramatically reduce chemicals loads, maintenance times, and damage to pool and spa equipments and the irritating side effects to pool and spa users like burning eyes, dry scalp and hair, etc.

The fourth was by way of subscribed information from the brilliant and practical minds at Iconoculture (www.iconoculture.com), which sent this notice out along with other newsy, cultural trends and insights:

The AmeriStar competition is billed as the Oscars of the packaging industry by the Institute of Packaging Professionals, the nonprofit org that sponsors the contest. The clothes, hairstyles and gossip aren’t quite as over the top as a Hollywood affair, but the emotions displayed are authentic and the camaraderie among the guests can be inspiring.

The winners — people with titles like packaging engineer, graphic designer and R&D director — finally get recognized for all their hard work.

Should clients seek awards as a way of raising their visibility? It depends on how you leverage them. The entry process can be time-consuming for your PR person and you. Unless you have won a prestigious-plus award like The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, or a similar one, you probably won’t get a feature news story out of it but rather a few sentences in local media publications. So why do it?

A true client experience says it all. A few years ago, the founder and CEO of a leading remodeling company/client that had won literally 30 or 40 awards for its work, warily asked in a meeting if we should enter the XYZ awards again.

“Gee, we’ve won it so often I wonder if it even matters any more,” he sighed.

“How do you customers feel about awards? I asked.

“They like them, they like to see us win them even more.” And there was his answer.

Awards are often critical for building your credibility within your industry and in the public at large, and occasionally you also will get media exposure for it. Now… here are the forms for the next one, due in about three days. Better get crackin’ .

Posted on

What’s a “Mature” Organization?

Male employee gesticulating in an office space

I conducted a workshop two weeks ago in which a participant mentioned that some of the other participants in the room were not from “mature organizations.” He went on to explain that their organizations were still somewhat small.

I countered that it’s often an illusion to assess the maturity of an organization based on it size. I suggested that maturity depends more on the nature of activities in the organization — that a small or large organization can be immature if, for example, its internal practices are more reactive and crisis-driven than proactive and plan-driven.

I added, even that depends on the culture of the people in the organization. Some cultures don’t do planning in the typical “linear” approach that we so often talk about. Rather than establishing goals, objectives, responsibilities and deadlines, those cultures might do planning in more of an “organic,” unfolding and dynamic approach.

One of the most useful, recent perspectives on organizations is that of life cycles. The view is that, just like people, organizations must evolve through life cycles, for example, birth, growth and maturity. Life cycles apply to many systems, including products and teams. If a system does not successfully evolve to the next stage, it can stagnate or even decline.

I’ve sometimes wondered about the life-cycle theory — if an organization reaches “maturity,” then does it remain there forever, or does it regress to earlier stages whenever there’s a sudden crisis, for example, a major recession? Or, does that organization, by the fact that it’s mature, evolve through the recession in a mature way?

What do you think is a “mature” organization?

—————————

For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.

———————————————————————————
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

Posted on

The Hope Theory of Leadership

Th text "hope" written with paper cards

I came to the overlapping fields of Leadership Development and Coaching through the stage door. I studied Theatre in college, have a graduate degree in Acting and started my adult life performing in Chicago’s Off-Loop theaters. Like my father in the newspaper business, I’ve grown up right alongside both the coaching profession and the field of “Leadership Studies,” just a few years to old to have discovered them as more viable alternatives for my higher education.

That’s okay.

Sitting beside me at my kitchen table tonight are two books that (in concert with 15 years in the nonprofit trenches and another 6+ as a coach) stand out as pinnacles of my self-styled higher education in leadership. They each connect profoundly, from different perspectives, with my own vision of a meaningful life.

They are:

  1. The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World by Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow and Marty Linsky, and
  2. Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future, by Margaret J. Wheatley.

The first is about purpose, perspective, connection, working outside your comfort zone, listening, risk, experimentation, failure, and trying again.

The second is about listening, connection, purpose, the common good, and hope.

Havel on Hope

Vaclav Havel wrote in Disturbing the Peace, “Hope … is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously headed for early success, but, rather, an ability to work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed. The more unpropitious the situation in which we demonstrate hope, the deeper that hope is. Hope is definitely not same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out. In short, I think that the deepest and most important form of hope, the only one that can keep us above water and urge us to good works, and the only true source of the breathtaking dimension of the human spirit and its efforts, is something we get, as it were, from “elsewhere.” It is also this hope, above all, which gives us the strength to live and continually to try new things, even in conditions that seem as hopeless as ours do, here and now.”

The Hope Theory of Leadership suggests that each of the other theories of leadership is useful in certain situations. And not a single one is useful without the kind of hope, which Havel describes, that lives, and works, and continually tries new things.

Leadership is not leadership without hope. What are your hopes? What will you try? What else?

Posted on

Fundraising: Leadership vs. Management

a-fundraising-leader-addressing-donors-and-colleagues

In her recent (April 16) blog, “To Lead” vs. “To Manage” (see: https://staging.management.org/blogs/leadership/), Julia Fabris McBride observed that “Organizations need leadership AND management.”

That made me realize that … up to now, I’ve been talking about fundraising from the perspective of “management – the role of the director of development – managing the volunteer leaders who will be responsible for actually making “it” happen. The DOD is the manager who supports, encourages and trains an organization’s fundraising leaders.

The fundraising “Leader” is someone who sets an example; and, by that example, gets others to want to become donors/advocates/leaders for a non-profit organization.

The fundraising leader:
1. Helps identify other potential leaders/donors;
2. Conveys to those individuals the depth of his feeling/passion
for the organization and its mission;
3. Exhibits the satisfaction that she gets from seeing how people
are helped by what the organization does;
4. Helps to make all that possible with his contributions; and,
5. Gets the prospective donor to where she wants to share in
those feelings.

The fundraising leader should not be seen as a “fundraiser.” S/he is a visible example of how a potential donor can share in the warm-and-fuzzies of being part of something really satisfying.

Don’t get me wrong !! At some point it will be time for the “leader” to ask for the gift, but one of my favorite “rules” is that the leader should not ask for the gift until the donor is ready to say, “Yes.”

And you’re thinking that it’s easy for me to say that, but you’re wondering how easy that is in reality. Want to know, stay tuned. Have specific questions to ask, ask’em.

===========================================
Have a question about starting or expanding your fundraising? Email me at AskDCA@Major-Capital-Giving.com. With over 30 years of counselling in major gifts, capital campaigns, bequest programs and the planning studies to precede these three, we’ll work to answer your question.

Posted on

Overcoming the Myth of the Paper Trail #1

A-female-team-leader-communicating-the-team-goals-to-her-mates

As mentioned in two previous posts, the paper trail seems to be a concept widely understood by individuals in multiple organizations. The concept is a reality for many and represents how the competing interests in organizations can work against the common goal of the company and its employees. Overcoming this competition of interests is required for the dissolution of the this mythical paper trail. If the paper trail continues to exist in the organization as tool for termination, then the conflict between managers, HR and employees will continue to take precedence over the organization’s goals.

Overcoming the Myth

Overcoming the myth of the paper trail can be very difficult for many organizations. HR departments often put great amounts of effort into developing performance management systems to include a myriad of forms and steps. Many companies even spend thousands of dollars training managers on the use of these forms and completing the steps. Despite these efforts, the paper trail still develops. The issue in many cases is not necessarily the failure to create great systems and useful forms; it is however, the failure to create a performance culture.

The culture in the organization can’t usually be found in the rule book, policy statement, or SOP. It is something that you see in the behaviors of the people in the organization. Their norms and customs become the example, therefore setting the “real” rules of behavior. For example, the handbook may dictate a professional dress code. However, everyone knows that the CEO wears jeans every day. Eventually others begin to follow the example until jeans become the dress code despite what the handbook says.

Creating this culture is not always easy. However, research continues to show a positive correlation to it and business success. Below is a list of the first steps to get you started. What others do you have to share as beginning stages? We will discuss this in the next two to three posts.

SET THE STAGE

Ensure the employee knows the expectations

  • Clearly define team roles
  • Discuss how goals and expectations relate to company mission
  • Review the job description and expectations with each new employee on their first day (provide a copy of the 30, 60, 90 day and annual reviews and explain what is required to meet and exceed expectations)
  • Meet at least weekly with new hires during their first 90 days and bi-weekly during the first six months
  • During performance meetings, refer back to the mission often

Involve the Team in Setting Goals and Expectations

  • Work with your staff to set team and individual goals and objectives that will meet the mission of the company
  • Discuss results with your team. Share the stats. Let them know how the department contributes to the goals of the organization
  • Post the goals of the department and the department’s mission (have the team work together to create the mission)

As always, your comments are encouraged!

————————————————————————————-

For more resources, See the Human Resources library.

—

Sheri Mazurek is a training and human resource professional with over 16 years of management experience, and is skilled in all areas of employee management and human resource functions, with a specialty in learning and development. She is currently employed as the Human Resource Manager at EmployeeScreenIQ, a global leader in pre-employment background screening.

Posted on

When Good Words Go Bad

A man wearing grey suit typing on his laptop

“Capacity building” is a term from the Grantonese language usually referring to an organization’s systemic effort to secure ever greater amounts of money on a consistent basis. It is not to be confused with “sustainability,” another word from the original Grantonese, referring to that state of fiscal nirvana in which a nonprofit believes it will not have to worry about money for any foreseeable future. It is believed that this mythical state is the “pot” at the end of the capacity building “rainbow,” but as so few charities have ever come back to tell us about that perfect state of sustainability, there is little empirical evidence to prove it actually exists.

I admit I am biased when it comes to the use of these two terms. That’s because I am a lover of language, and a lover of the very essence – and presumed end — of the not-for-profit movement.

Thus, I would banish “capacity building” from all discourse on the topic of making change in the community and the world. For one, it’s not language I would use in the company of growing children sitting around the dinner table. And if I can’t use it there, what hope do I have of successfully using it to inspire busy, distracted adult volunteers sitting around the board table once a month (or less)?

As for “sustainability,” I simply find to be a sad little word, and for that reason would abolish its use in our sector. “Sustainability” admits defeat. It implies that our organization – alone or in concert with other community initiatives – has no hope of ever vanquishing the social or community “wrong,” or deficit, our charity seeks to “right.” It sets our organizational bar at being around forever rather than succeeding in making itself obsolete.

So I beg, dear gentle Reader, that you forgive me in advance for restraining myself from using those terms except when I’m traveling in Grantland, just as I only toss “ciao” about when in Italy, or “dog” when I’m watching American Idol.

Until next week, farewell and fare well …

——————

For more resources, see our Library topic Nonprofit Capacity Building.

——————

Posted on

How to Describe Spirit in the Workplace – Another Perspective.

A woman meditating while raising her arms

It’s an honor to be co-hosting this blog with Linda and we look forward to exploring this meaningful topic with you! Linda shared with you her insights on what spirituality at work is and I’m going to do the same. As I’ve been studying and living out this topic for the past 15 years all I know is that I’m grateful to have this passion because it’s changed the way I work and live.

What is it?

Some refer to it as a sense of enthusiasm. Others relate it to interconnectedness. Some describe it as the whole self. Others think it is associated with religion. So what is “it” that people have different interpretations of? It is referred to as spirit in the workplace.

My description of spirit in the workplace is that it allows you to feel a greater sense of connection by bringing your whole self, the essence of who you are, to a supportive environment. It is not associated with religion. Let’s explore some key elements within this description.

Connection. People are yearning to connect with others. Connections provide people with meaning and a sense of belonging to something greater.

Whole self. The whole self concept encourages people to look at their life holistically – that they aren’t one person in their personal life and then another person in their professional lives. In fact, business poet David Whyte explains how most of us only bring 60 percent of ourselves to the workplace and leave the other 40 percent of our real self in the car.

Essence. Essence is about getting to your core, your inner self. Author Alexandra Stoddard said that “your spirit, your essence, is at the heart of everything about you.” The only way that you can get to the core is to go within and find your heart’s deepest desires.

Supportive environment. The other key piece is the environment. Whether it is at home or on the job, a supportive environment is how the spirit is embraced and fostered.

Not associated with religion. Spirit in the workplace does not promote a specific religion, it promotes an all-inclusive and interconnected view similar to spirituality.

How about you? We invite you to share your perspective!

********************

For more resources, see our Library topic Spirituality in the Workplace.

——————

Posted on

Running On Empty

A businessman holding money while working in his office

Way too many social enterprises are way too undercapitalized. They don’t have the cash on hand to make rational spending decisions on staffing, inventory, professional expertise, marketing, and so on, to grow their venture. Their tendency is not only to go cheap, but to go without for things they desperately need to turn their social enterprise idea into successful reality.

This is not unique to the social enterprise world. Many failures in the business world come as a result of cash flow problems. Numerous companies go under because they run out of money, even while they’re profitable on paper. They can’t pay their bills, so their suppliers or creditors or staff walk out on them, and it’s all over.

And I would say that most social enterprises are cash poor, running on fumes, never realizing their full potential due to insufficient cash flow.

What to do about it? Well, to come back to an important point, write a solid business plan. Or update the one you’ve got. Carefully prepare monthly cash flow projections for at least your first full year in business. Track payables (when you have to pay for stuff) and receivables (when you get paid). Most likely there’ll be some months when you won’t have enough cash to pay your bills. Develop strategies such as a line of credit or an angel investor to get over those bumps in the road. And keep your fixed costs as low as possible.

Starting and operating a social enterprise is difficult enough. Don’t start your venture until you’re confident you won’t be running on empty. In cars and in business, you need gas or you won’t go anywhere.

Posted on

How to Start Strategic Planning: Do a Plan for a Plan – Part 5 of 5

Woman thinking hard about her next strategic chess move

In Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this topic, we reviewed the first 12 of the 15 questions to be answered during the “plan for a plan” portion of strategic planning. This Part 5 describes questions 13-15.

13. How will you get buy-in of members of the organization?

There seems to be growing cynicism about strategic planning. Far too often, the process is overwhelming and confusing for planners. Far too often, the process does not result in implementation of a relevant, realistic and flexible plan. The commitment and ownership of members of the organization is crucial to the success of the planning process and the plan. Consider these guidelines:

  • Show visible top-leadership support – the CEO and Board Chair should visibly announce the process and show their continuing support of it.
  • Explain if previous planning efforts failed and why – don’t expect members to simply ignore the past.
  • Explain why you are planning now and how it benefits the organization.
  • Involve those who will implement the plan – don’t somehow bestow the plan on the rest of the organization.
  • Tie planning to important issues – you won’t have buy-in of members to a grand vision if their hearts and minds are worried about current issues in the workplace.
  • Show how the planning is realistic – unrealistic plans are one of the biggest reasons for cynicism about planning.

14. How will you ensure implementation of the plan?

One of the biggest frustrations with planning is when it produces a plan that doesn’t get implemented.

  • Involve those in planning who will end up implementing the plan – that helps to get their commitment to implementing the plan.
  • When identifying goals, always ask “Are these goals realistic? How do we know?”
  • Include action plans in the overall plan – actions plans specify who will do what and by when, in order to achieve goals.
  • Assign specific people to monitor implementation of the plan.
  • Be open to changing the plan – plans are rarely implemented as first written.

15. How will you change the plan as needed?

Plans can be changed. They just need to be changed in a systematic approach.

  • Before a plan is formally approved, put “DRAFT” on each page of the plan. After approval, remove the word.
  • On each page, put a revision date, e.g., “Revision – April 15, 2010”.
  • If a change seems to be needed, propose the change to the appropriate leadership, e.g. the Board or the CEO.
  • When the leadership approves the change, then put a new revision date on the plan.

This post completes the series. To see Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, click on the category “Plan for a Plan” on the sidebar.

What do you think?

Your thoughts about the plan for a plan?

Here’s many more resources about strategic planning.

———————————————————————————————–
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.