May 2010 – Page 5 – Management Library

May 19, 2010March 23, 2023

Mentoring Programs who do They Benefit and How can they work Better?

Mentoring programs seem to be coming of age in the corporate world and other places such as public and private school systems. Who do these programs benefit? While I was a grad student one of my group projects was to find a way to capture tacit knowledge and find an organization who is doing this. We found through research that mentoring was a perfect way to capture such knowledge. We also found a Middle school who was in the 2nd year of their mentoring program and that it was not working out the way they wanted. So we took them on.

We found that if the teachers had more time together the program would work much better. So we solved that problem by suggesting that all mentors and mentees set aside one hour a week to meet in person at a coffee shop or some other location for coffee and to discuss problems and solutions, and then we also set up a system where the mentees were able to email their mentors with problems or questions they might have. Then they saved all the correspondents between parties and compiled a notebook which was past onto the next set of mentors and mentees.

This mentor program along with others I have researched benefits all parties involved, the reason being that everyone brings some type of knowledge to the table which is then shared. We found a big challenge for the mentors in this school was the technology component. The younger teachers assisted by teaching their mentors computer programs and other ways to make the technology work for them. The mentees were having problems such as unruly students or having problems getting parents involved, the mentors helped in those areas, this program ended up benefiting even the school itself by building better teachers all around. I believe this is true for the corporate environment too. Sharing tacit knowledge especially helps lower costs of training newbees. What a case in support of KM!

As always Happy Training and comments questions concerns and guests are always welcome!

Leigh

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

– Looking for an expert in training and development or human performance technology?
– Contact me: Leigh Dudley – Linkedin – 248-349-2881 or 248-277-2966
– Read my blog: Training and Development

May 18, 2010August 17, 2022

Are We Really Just Looking for Leaders to Save Us From Ourselves?

Guest submission from Carter McNamara of Authenticity Consulting, LLC.

An Earlier Time When We Fantasized Heroic Leaders

In the 1960s and ‘70s, many of us took part in “rap” sessions. Back then, rapping was a free-floating discussion, usually centered around utopian dreams of what society should be, but wasn’t. We lamented how corrupt “the establishment” was, how adults didn’t understand us and how business was ruining the world.

We fantasized a world where business leaders worked only for the good of humankind, where leaders stopped war or famine, where leaders ensured everyone was happy everywhere all the time. We desperately needed heroic leaders.

Too Often We Blamed Leaders – We Should’ve Blamed Ourselves

But even back then, many of us were haunted that, rather than working to improve the world, we were actually trying to escape from it. Rather than trying to understand the world of those who had bills to pay or children to feed, we believed instead that we were the only ones who really knew “the truth.”

Soon we grew tired of the rap sessions – each one sounded like the last. Soon we quit tuning in. Instead, many turned on — and too many just dropped out.

Are We Again Searching for Heroic Leaders to Save Us?

Just read any article about leadership today (especially those written by consultants) and those articles very likely assert an almost inhuman range of features that leaders simply must have. They must be visionary, inspirational, motivational, virtuous, principled, centered, humble, servants, passionate, productive, mentor, counselor, coach, facilitator, wise, nurturant, diplomatic, learning, adaptable, fun, assertive, not aggressive, systems thinker, conscientious and on and on. Consultants assert that leaders should be “true leaders” and “they should not be managers”.

Deep Yearning for Meaning Today – No One Else Can Give That To Us

A famous movement in philosophy is “existentialism.” There are many different major players in this movement, some of them deeply religious and some atheists. But all of them believed that each individual was responsible for the quality – the essence – of his/her own life.

Many believed that if someone tries to avoid the responsibilities and tensions of day-to-day reality, then that person will fall into chronic anxiety, boredom and despair. Means to avoid reality might include addictions or the belief that one is somehow outside the rest of the routine world. Chronic fantasies are also very popular means to avoid reality.

How much are we just fantasizing when we assert the many wondrous traits of the “true leader”?

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

May 18, 2010July 15, 2022

Tools of the Trade 3: The Call

You have sent out your news release. Now what? Get back to what you do best? Take a walk? Sit by the phone and wait? Most people who don’t have a public relations person in their company, or don’t use a PR advisor or agency often make the mistake of thinking that just because the news release went out that it will get “picked up.”

It might if the news is compelling, or it aligns with other stories like it in news cycle, and/or you have some history with the news organizations that you sent the release to. In my career I’ve met many people who have let a release fly but never once made a callback to follow up. “Media Relations” are all about following up, but there are some basic rules to follow when making “The Call.”

Rule 1

Never call and ask if the news release was received. What you are really calling about is why your story is important or plays off something making headlines that day. Or your story has a strong local angle to something occurring nationally or internationally.

Rule 2

Be succinct. If you’re lucky enough to get someone live on the phone, you have precious seconds to convince the other party that it merits their attention and coverage. Create a script if you need to that includes your key message. Rehearse. Call a colleague and practice it. But sound natural and not like you’re reading the ingredients off a can of soup.

Rule 3

Put on your Telemarketer Hat. The next time an annoying telemarketer calls you, rather than saying, “No thank you, you idiot, you are calling me during dinner yet again and there are laws to prevent these calls if only I wasn’t so lazy to call the number and be registered as part of the no-call zone, I would not have to listen to your sorry spiel, you must be really hard up for work, or lazier than I am. Goodbye!” Instead, listen to how they pitch whatever it is they’re selling, a politician, a new product, or service. Whatever it is, most likely the person has their message down and is ready to engage.

Rule 4

Set a callback limit. As a general rule I go by the three strikes and you’re out limit — meaning, I’ve tried three times and left three messages. Depending on the client or the urgency, I may not leave a message at all but just keep calling until I get a live one on the line. If I’m using email, once or twice is enough. If I haven’t made my case but feel I really need to push — and this story is really worth being told by a TV station or section of the newspaper — I’ll keep trying and maybe reposition my pitch.

Rule 5

Be discreet. There’s a fine line between being persistent and being a pest. It doesn’t take much to land on somebody’s black list if you’ve breached their tolerance level or filled up their email with the same message over and over again. To paraphrase the great Joe South song, “walk a mile in their shoes,” and make The Call confidently, expecting only good results.

May 18, 2010July 15, 2022

Social Media Use – Employee Policies and Guidelines

Blogs, comments and social network postings are very important in businesses’ marketing tactics. They attract audiences and begin to build relationships of trust and engagement. But employee posts can also inadvertently cause PR nightmares for business, if even ONE errant post goes viral and causes negative word of mouth.

Legal Risks of Employees’ Social Media Use

When using social media, companies are exposed to many serious risks from multiple angles, including:

Defamation
Copyright
Anti-trust issues
Inappropriate use by staff
Intellectual property rights
User generated content
Employment practices

It’s Time to Plan Your Policies and Guidelines

Don’t let your marketing and communications teams run ahead without due diligence and risk management controls.

EXAMPLE Social Media Policies

Let’s take a quick look at a few companies’ policies and guidelines on employee use of social networking. The policy excerpts below offer highlights of their own in-house guidelines:

Yahoo’s Blog Policies – Belief Statement

“Yahoo! believes in fostering a thriving online community and supports blogging as a valuable component of shared media.”

For more information, see excerpts fromYahoo’s Policies

Mayo Clinic’s Employee Social Media Policy

“The main thing Mayo employees need to remember about blogs and social networking sites is that the same basic policies apply in these spaces as in other areas of their lives. The purpose of these guidelines is to help employees understand how Mayo policies apply to these newer technologies for communication, so you can participate with confidence not only on this blog, but in other social media platforms.”

City of Seattle

“To address the fast-changing landscape of the Internet and the way residents communicate and obtain information online, City of Seattle departments may consider using social media tools to reach a broader audience. The City encourages the use of social media to further the goals of the City and the missions of its departments, where appropriate.”

Many companies are quite explicit, with well-defined, formal rules. Others adopt a more open, lenient culture.

Could this be inviting a future legal battle?

——————

For more resources, see our Library topics Marketing and Social Networking.

.. _____ ..

ABOUT Lisa M. Chapman: With offices in Nashville Tennessee, but working virtually with international clients, Lisa M. Chapman serves her clients as a business and marketing coach, business planning consultant and social media consultant. As a Founder of iBrand Masters, a social media consulting firm, Lisa Chapman helps clients to establish and enhance their online brand, attract their target market, engage them in meaningful social media conversations, and convert online traffic into revenues. Email: Lisa @ LisaChapman.com

May 18, 2010April 29, 2022

GRANTS: FREE MONEY – NOT QUITE !! (Part Two)

In case you haven’t yet been there and done that, applying for and accepting a grant is the equivalent of signing a contract – in some cases there really is a contract.

The process is that grantors publish parameters for projects/programs they will fund, and you request funding for a project/program that is within their parameters.

If you are granted funding, it is understood and expected that said funding will support the project described in your proposal; and, that you will report back on how the grant was used and how it helped you to attain the goals stated in your proposal.

Some grantors require periodic (financial and activity) reports on the progress of the project for which they’ve provided the funding. Some don’t. In either case, you should take great care in preparing and submitting such reports, as they will look at the reports from your last grant, before providing new money.

You can improve your chances of being funded, but only if your applications go to the right funders … only if they contain the required information … only if you’ve provided the required follow-up information on prior grants … only if your programs meet the specific requirements outlined by those grantmakers.

And, btw, in addition to publishing guidelines describing who and what they will fund — a significant number of foundations specify who and what they won’t fund.

Know this, funders talk to each other. If you use your grants effectively, in the manner indicated in your proposals, then many grantors will let other foundations and corporations know that you are worthy. They will also pass the word if you are less than successful in meeting their requirements and your goals.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

May 17, 2010March 29, 2023

Business Plan Software Recommendations

Writing a business plan takes time. Using software can help organize your work and save you some time, especially if you haven’t written one before.

Here’s a quick summary of what, from my experience, are the three best choices:

Business Plan Pro by Palo Alto Software claims it’s the best selling business planning software for the past ten years. It offers more than 500 sample business plans. Standard Edition sells for $100; Premier for $200 (allows managing cash flow and importing Excel content)
Business Plan Pro Social Enterprise Edition was developed by the Social Enterprise Alliance in partnership with Palo Alto Software. It’s contains everything in Business Plan Pro along with business plan examples from social enterprises. It sells for $200 ($174 for SEA members).
BizPlan Builder by JIAN has versions available for Mac or Windows, is also highly rated and sells for $129.

Can’t decide? Take a look at this review of ten different business planning software programs to help you pick the one that’s right for you.

But remember, these are only tools. Ultimately you have to do the research, make the important decisions, and write your plan. Software can only do so much.

Good luck!

——————

For more resources, see our Library topic Business Planning.

Copyright © 2010 Rolfe Larson Associates – Fifteenth Anniversary, 1995 – 2010
Author of Venture Forth! Endorsed by the late Paul Newman of Newman’s Own
Read my weekly blogs on Social Enterprise and Business Planning

May 17, 2010August 17, 2022

Form Follows Function

It used to be that there were essentially three choices: private, public, or nonprofit. Privately-held companies offer the most flexibility, without outside investors or the IRS constantly looking over your shoulders. A privately-held social enterprise can choose to invest some of its profits into achieving social impact without anyone second guessing those decisions. But if you’re ready to raise large amounts of capital, going “public” through an initial public offering is the usual way to go.

There’s a price for that, though. Publicly-held companies need to justify their actions to investors, who, as the legal owners, have the legal right to force management to do everything it can to increase profits, even at the expense of social impact. Public boards are obligated to sell the company if doing so would enhance “stockholder equity.” For that reason, Ben & Jerry’s went from being an independent company with a social purpose, to being part of an international conglomerate. Ben and Jerry didn’t have a choice in the matter, nor did their board.

That’s why many for-profit social enterprises tend to be privately held.

But the times they are a changing. A number of states have approved the Low-Profit Limited Liability (L3C) corporate structure, which attempts to bridge the gap between for-profit and nonprofit models. L3C’s must “significantly further the accomplishment of one or more charitable or educational purposes,” but can still have private investors and make a profit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3C

Another “hybrid” is a For-Benefit Corporation, or B-Corp. Based on an independent assessment, B-Corps receive a certification as socially responsible, and in so doing make it clear to investors that the company will consider other stakeholders, such as the community and the environment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_corporation,

So as you consider how to get “organized” with your social enterprise, be sure to consider these other structures as well as the usual suspects including LLC, partnership, S and C corporations, and nonprofit.

Get some expert advice, and then pick the structure that best fits your purpose. There’s no one correct answer, just the structure that’s best for your purpose and your market. Form Follows Function.

—————————–

May 17, 2010February 18, 2022

Should I Use Goals-Based or Issues-Based Planning?

Far too often, organizations choose the wrong approach to strategic planning. As a result, strategic plans sit untouched on shelves and planners become even more cynical about the strategic planning process. This occurs especially with 1) new organizations, 2) organizations having many current issues, and 3) organizations having very limited resources. Here’s how to fix the problem.

What’s Goals-Based Planning?

Goals-based (or vision-based) planning works from the future to the present. Planners pick some time into the future and then suggest specific goals to be achieved by that time. Often, goals are specified in terms of specific accomplishments, for example, achieve to 1 million in sales revenue or a 20% profit rate at the end of the next three fiscal years.

Hopefully, planners also associate actions plans with each goal. Action plans clarify who is going to do what and by when in order to achieve the goal. The planning process might also include clarifying the mission statement, and even scanning the environments external and internal to the organization in order to identify priorities to address in the plan. Goals-based planning is usually based on a rather long-range plan, at least 3-5 years into the future.

What’s Issues-Based Planning?

In contrast, issues-based planning starts from the present and works to the future. Planners identify major issues facing the organization right now. It’s best if issues are described as questions, for example, “How will we activate our Board of Directors?” or “How can we manage our finances much more effectively?”

Then planners specify action plans about who is going to do what and by when in order to address each issue. They might scan the external environment, but they focus especially on the internal environment of the organization in order to ensure the organization accomplish strong internal systems. Issues-based planning usually produces a plan with a short time range, for example, one year.

Which Approach to Planning Should I Use?

If your organization is 1-2 years old, has many current issues and/or has very limited resources in terms of people and funding, then you should strongly consider doing issues-based planning for now. Then, after a year or so, after you’ve implemented your issues-based plan, your internal systems will be much stronger and ready for doing more future-based planning.

An added benefit of issues-based planning is that it usually gets much stronger buy-in from planners because their minds are not ruminating on current major issues, while they’re being asked to fantasize far-reaching goals that might result in even more issues to address very soon.

What do you think?

May 17, 2010August 17, 2022

Social Schizophrenia

Person working with a mouse at their office desk

On which side of philanthropy’s great divide do you stand? More importantly, where do your donors and potential donors stand?

The divide used to be less noticeable, but with the explosion of social media over the past five years, tweeting, blogging, and linking has brought the great divide to the forefront.

On the one side are those who assume that “social capital” belongs in the public domain and should be applied to the public good. The “public good” is defined by broad terms such as social justice and environmental ethics.

On the other side are those who are productively and satisfyingly engaged in personal philanthropy … where one’s giving is a personal expression of one’s own values, concerns, interests, (hopefully) vision, and, yes, even whim.

Do donors have a social obligation to subordinate their personal philanthropic passions to a group-think standard for how and why they should give? Isn’t that part of what we pay taxes for – how successfully have THOSE dollars been used to create social equity? Will a philanthropic “free social capital market” be any more successful – or socially just – than, say, a Goldman Sachs-school market?

The divide is more than polemics. If you think this debate has no bearing on your own nonprofit, think again. Where you stand on this issue will affect everything from how you frame your case, to how you package your appeal, to how you interact one-on-one with your supporters and those you serve.

Private philanthropic money … public good or private vision?

And what, in essence IS philanthropy … “love of mankind” or “obligation to mankind”?

Food for thought.

Farewell and fare well until next week …

——————

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

——————

May 17, 2010March 22, 2023

Designing and Building Real-Time Learning Systems

The word "learn" spelt with letter blocks

Marv Weisbord’s Model – Two Critical Paths to Change

Marv Weisbord’s model “Two Critical Paths for Improving Organizations” suggests, that when it comes to improving our organizations, the first question is, “Who is going to be involved? The second question is, “What is it they are to go about improving?”

The answer to the first question is on the one hand, “experts,” and on the other hand, “everyone.” The response to the second question is on the one hand, “isolated problems,” and on the other hand, “whole systems.”

Historically We Used “Experts” to Guide Change

As he points out, historically we have thrown “experts” at isolated problems. We have brought in outside consultants to provide recommendations and prescriptions about the problems that plague us. Experts have advised us how to improve productivity and how to improve communications.

This is dealing with problems as “technocratic challenges.” We believe that these decisions and solutions are made visible to us by expertise. Functional specialists determine what needs to be done, by other people who have to implement.

We need to be astute in locating and gaining this expertise, setting the conditions where they can analyze the problems, and making sure people do what they are told to do to solve the problem. This is the way we tend to go after our problems and we have a lot of them.

Historical Approaches Weren’t Integrated

During the late 1960’s and 1970’s, the Quality Circle movement took root and managers tried to get everybody to address these isolated problems. The problems still were not integrated into a meaningful perspective, because most managers had many demands and problems, and no real sense of how all their efforts tied together.

Without thinking systemically, most people were trying to do the best they could within their areas of influence. The idea was to mobilize everybody’s focus and energy to try to improve. This got reduced into trivia; people spent hours discussing the quality and color of hand towels in the rest rooms.

The movement was abandoned after awhile and lost credibility, although more than a few local improvements were made although the quality movement has contributed immensely in statistical process analysis and many other tools.

Advent of a Whole Systems Perspective

At the same time, a few reflective scholarly consulting practitioners were experimenting with ways to improve whole systems. (Starting with the work of Emery and Trist and others in the socio-technical approach to organization development, consultants were being influenced by the “systems view” espoused by Bertalanffy, C.W. Churchman, Kenneth Boulding and Katz and Kahn to name a few.)

Systems’ thinking was taking hold in the academic and consulting community — today it is a well-grounded perspective. Everyone in organizations talks about systems, and new hires into organizations can go on at length about the theories and concepts. The problem has been getting this knowledge used in highly functional organizations.

The early specialists were not just interested in elegant industrial designs. They were aware that organization effectiveness is a function of technical and social systems integration, and that true performance was the joint optimization of both variables in the design of work. Thirty years of research and collective wisdom has produced the insight that performance change can only be achieved when everyone is involved in improving the whole system.

So What’s Next for Guiding Change?

The trick is how to make that happen.

How do we get everyone involved in improving whole systems?
How does change happen without a “hand off” or a “roll out”?
How do leaders make it happen in “real time” not just talk about it, but do it in the process of learning how to do it.

These questions have been central in Organization Development for the last few years and certainly will be thought about for a long time to come.

What do you think?

—————————

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

———————————————————–
Jim Smith has over 40 years of organization development experience in a wide range of organizations.