Searching for a new job is hard work. In fact, it can be the toughest “job” you’ll ever have.
That’s why the key to job search success is treating the entire process like a business. You are currently in the “job hunting” business. Like any successful business, you need a plan that has goals and strategies to guide you. Otherwise you’re just flapping your wings getting no where.
Jump-start your next job search with these seven job-hunting strategies:
1. Know what you’re selling. Begin your job search by taking a thorough inventory of your interests, skills, accomplishments, experience, goals, and values. Make a detailed list. The key to a successful job search is recognizing what makes you a unique candidate and communicating this effectively to a prospective employer, both verbally and in writing.
2. Aim for the right target. Try to match your skills, interests, and values with the right career choice. If one of your goals is to get a larger salary, don’t focus on career paths that traditionally pay low salaries. Do some research. Learn about different companies that interest you and target those that are more likely to have open positions.
3. Be assertive and proactive. Don’t wait around for opportunity to come knocking on your door. While cold calling on potential employers can be intimidating, it remains a powerful strategy. It’s important to get through the door first, before your competition.
4. Do some sleuthing. One key is understanding the “hidden” job market. Many job openings exist only in the minds of directors, vice presidents, and other company bigwigs long before the job is finally advertised in newspapers or on the Internet. If you can present yourself as the perfect candidate at this early stage, an employer may snap you up without looking elsewhere.
5. Work your network. Networking should be at the center of your job search strategy. Get the word out to friends, trusted colleagues, and even relatives that you are actively looking for a job, and ask them to keep their eyes and ears open for any opportunities. Expand your network by joining professional organizations, signing up for job search newsletters and e-mail blasts, contacting former professors and classmates, and by participating in Internet discussion boards.
6. Get professional help. Employment agencies come in all shapes, sizes, and price ranges, and they can be an excellent resource for job leads. Some specialize in very specific occupational areas, and many often have exclusive arrangements with large companies. If you’re interested in the services of an agency, investigate it carefully. Determine what the agency will do for you and how much it will cost.
7. Be temporarily flexible. Temp jobs are a great way to learn skills, gain experience, and earn money while looking for a permanent position. They are also a way to prove your worth and be first in line when a full-time position does open up. Working as a consultant or independent contractor in a company can also eventually lead to steady, full-time employment.
8. Say it clearly. When sending out resumes, catch the prospective employer’s attention with a brief and concise cover letter / email that spells out clearly how your qualifications match the job requirements. Connect the dots for the reader, making it obvious why you’re the perfect candidate for the job.
9. Keep careful records. Keeping track of the progress of your job search is important. Maintain a detailed record of all the jobs you have applied to, including communications, interviews, referrals, and follow-up actions. This will help you build a network of valuable contacts both for your current job search and any future ones.
Career Success Tip:
Job search is hard work and there are times when you will become discouraged. Just keep in mind that everyone has been through the same grind at one point. Keep a positive attitude about the whole process and look at your job hunt as a business that you need to invest in. Good luck!
There is a myth about hiring campaign counsel that, in essence, says that you should hire someone from your area because they will know the area and all the people, and will be better able to point you at the right prospective leaders and donors. That’s very wrong, for two reasons:
1. Any consultant who has worked with other organizations in your area
is ethically bound to keep confidential any information s/he may have
gathered (in the course of working with those organizations) about the
leaders of and donors to their campaigns.
That information belongs to the organization that hired the consultant.
It’s not his/hers to share. After all, you wouldn’t want that consultant
to go on to his/her next gig and tell them all about your donors!!
2. You hire a consultant for his/her expertise, knowledge and experience –
someone who can guide you through a process, not give you all the
answers. Besides, there are no consultants who can give you all the
answers … every campaign is different.
It’s because of those differences that you need a consultant whose
expertise and experience can guide you through the process. It’s not
whom s/he knows in your community or what s/he knows about your
community … it’s his/her expertise, flexibility, creativity and ability
to work with you and your constituents that will make the difference.
Of course, if your organization is located in a major city there will be many consultants and consulting firms, and many (prospective) major donors. That will make it more likely that you can find counsel that would not find him-/herself in a position of conflict of interest.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Have a comment or a question about starting, evaluating or expanding your fundraising program? Email me at AskHank@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 likely be able to answer your questions.
Lead Independent Directors are becoming fashionable. They are now an accepted and appreciated element of board work. Boards that appointed them (sometimes on a rotating basis at each meeting to avoid conferring any power on the incumbent) with reluctance are now singing their praises. So what has lead to this Road to Damascus conversion?
Is a combination of roles inappropriate?
The issue is one of fitness for the tasks at hand. If the combined role of chairman and CEO (often called president) is satisfying the needs of the stakeholders (mostly the board and the senior executives but also the shareholders and the regulators) then by all means combine the roles.
In Australia this combination of two roles in one person is more often found in companies that are ‘in transition’; usually recovering from a disaster, newly formed or recently changed, growing very fast, having lost a trusted incumbent of one role unexpectedly and without a clear succession, or heading for disaster and/or unable to find a person to fill one of the roles.
In some companies the concentration of power in one set of hands allows for swift decision-making, clear communications and great performance. In other companies the combination leads to a quashing of diverse views and influences in decision-making which leads to eventually disaster. The difficult issue is to know which sort of company you are in.
What are the roles?
The general convention is that the chairman is ‘the boss of the board’ and the CEO is ‘the boss of the day to day operations of the company’.
There are areas of contention about whether the board (lead by the chairman) or the executive team (lead by the CEO) is responsible for strategy, design of risk management, appointment of internal auditors, etc. To resolve these areas most good boards will decide where to handle each issue based on a rational analysis of the skills available, the time for doing the work, and the level of confidence they have in the management team. If there is any doubt most regulatory regimes stipulate that the board has the power and is in a position to choose what is delegated and to whom. Sometimes a combined board and executive committee will be the best solution, sometimes management propose and boards ‘add value’, sometimes boards suggest and management ‘refine and develop’.
To further cloud the waters, there is a convention that, although we refer to the Chairman as ‘the boss of the board’, the chairman leads the board only with the consent of the other directors. This consent can be withdrawn at any time (unless you are in one of those rare organisations where the board is appointed; usually in the government or quasi-government sector, in which case the shareholder will have to be asked to decide).
When a board is wavering in its support of the chairman there is a power vacuum which will become dangerous if not addressed. At this point another director needs to step up to the task of discussing the issue with the remaining directors and then, when a clear consensus is formed, with the chairman. Ideally this other director would be the person in the role of ‘lead independent director’ or ‘deputy chairman’ as those roles already have some level of conferred trust from the remaining directors.
Agency theory at work
Agency theory has it that management teams, in the absence of firm controls, will naturally tend to reward themselves at the expense of the shareholders. The board is intended to be the principle control and should supervise and direct management so that the needs of shareholders are given priority. In a not-for-profit those needs would include doing more work, at less cost, to further the aims of the organisation. In a for profit enterprise those aims would include optimising current profit and future wealth creation.
When the leader of the board is also the principal manager of the management team agency theory would suggest that the management team will reward themselves excessively at the shareholders’ expense. In that situation an independent leader is required to assist the board to reach a rational and unbiased view of appropriate remuneration and other ‘perks’ such as large offices, executive jets, interest free loans to buy stock, etc. Ideally the lead independent director will perform that role.
Disentangling roles when disaster looms
All companies need to change the incumbents of their most senior roles at some time. Changing the CEO or Chairman is one of those occasions. When the chairman is also the CEO this is a very complex decision to make. Which role is being fulfilled inadequately? Or is it both roles?
When a chairman is also the CEO he or she, as a member of the board, should have a role in firing the CEO, and should have a role, as the chairman, in developing the consensus that firing the CEO is the action that will create the best outcome for the shareholders. This is an impossible conflict of interest and, to resolve it, companies that have decided to combine the roles, have created the role of lead independent director to step in and usurp the role of the chairman in that decision.
Likewise, when it is the chairman role that is being performed inadequately the CEO is usually the first person to reach that opinion and the one with most knowledge of the issues that need to be better handled. When the roles are combined the incumbent is unlikely to recognise that he or she is providing inadequate self leadership. The long suffering lead independent director is expected to recognise these signs and alert the rest of the board to them.
Added value
Having established the role of lead independent director to handle these pernicious problems, boards then discovered that this role could offer many additional advantages. Lead executive directors are now often involved in leading the performance assessment of the chairman. This requires a director to have a good knowledge of governance and a high level of interpersonal skill to delve into the information and then convey it to the Chairman.
Another area where Lead Independent Directors add value is in the assessment and appointment of auditors, both statutory and internal, because the Chairman has a conflict of interest in this matter.
When the role was first introduced it was viewed with suspicion. Now, in companies where the incumbent has performed well, it is viewed as an essential component of board success. It is not, and never will be, a role for the faint hearted, inexperienced or Pollyanna-ish. It goes a long way towards resolving the conflicts inherent in combined Chairman and CEO roles. Company where the role has been performed ‘sub-optimally’ are now looking at boards where the role is adding value to governance and upgrading their own performance. There is even evidence that the role (if not yet the title) is spreading to boards where the CEO and Chairman roles are separate.
Some of us are really good at giving positive feedback. Others are really good at giving negative feedback. Not many seem skilled in providing both, what I call balanced feedback. Occasionally a client will tell me, “just tell it like it is. Be brutally honest.” Or, “you are just being nice.” This makes me wonder if my feedback is too polite, or too subtle, even though I try to give it honestly and in a balanced fashion. Why? Let’s take a look at what can happen when you give feedback, either too positive or too negative.
Too little positive feedback.
While working recently with a manager, I noticed that he tended to give mostly negative feedback, and very little positive. This manager stated that he had been taught that giving negative feedback would be more motivational. He also thought positive feedback seemed “too soft” and unnecessary. As he added: “Why should we praise people for just doing their jobs?”
When most or all feedback is negative, people know what you don’t like, but they often have to guess at what you do like or want from them. They may feel overwhelmed and discouraged by the criticism, and they may take it personally. They don’t ready minds, and so are often confused about what you really want. They may lose confidence, since everything they do seems wrong. In addition, if the only time they hear from you is when you have a complaint, they may soon begin to feel defensive, or try to avoid interactions with you.
That said, negative feedback has its place. To be effective it needs to be specific and non-judgmental. Compare these two comments on a written report:
1. “I can’t believe you turned in such shoddy work. Don’t you know any better?”
2. “One of your conclusions was faulty and you had 3 typos on the report.”
The first comment is shaming and demotivating. I feel bad, but I don’t know what I should do differently. The second comment seems deliberately unemotional, so it takes the shame out of it. It also gives me specific information about what I can do to improve.
Too much positive feedback. If you are a big believer in positive feedback, or if you don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, you may be relying too much on positive feedback and fail to deliver the bad news. We have all heard about employees who received glowing performance reviews right up to the day they were let go for “performance issues.” Obviously, there were problems that should have been addressed. If all you give is positive feedback, people can have an unrealistically high view of their worth and performance levels. Because they receive unbalanced feedback, they can have confidence above and beyond their actual performance levels.
Positive reinforcement certainly has its place, and to be effective it also needs to be specific and clear. Consider these two examples:
1. “Good job. Keep it up.”
2. “Your report was clear, your conclusions were on target, and the writing was crisp and accurate.”
The first comment may make me feel good, but I am not really sure what was right about my work. It might make me feel bad because you didn’t even take time to notice what I did. In other words, the easy compliment seems canned and can come across as insincere. The second comment is all positive, but it tells me what you valued, and clearly shows you read my report.
Balanced feedback. Balanced feedback provides feedback on what is being done well as well as what could be improved. The positive feedback builds confidence and reinforces the “good” behavior you want to see more of. It clarifies expectations. It feels good. The negative feedback is given factually and preferably with suggestions for improvement.
Consider this example of balanced feedback:
1. “Your report was clear, your conclusions were on target, and the writing was crisp and accurate. There were several typos, and for that I suggest more careful proofing. And one of your conclusions wasn’t clear to me. Let’s talk it over this afternoon and compare notes. Overall, great job!”
If you lead, coach or develop people, I suggest aiming for balanced feedback that builds confidence, shows the direction you want the performance to take, and highlights areas for improvement in a clear, non-punishing way. At the same time, note that people react differently. Some crave the honest feedback, and some crave the “feel good” aspects of positive feedback. Some remember and take to heart any criticism, and some live for it. So adjust accordingly, but always strive to be honest, sincere and matter-of-fact.
By being honest and straightforward, and by offering balanced feedback, the people you influence can build skills and confidence at the same time.
We aren’t the only ones concerned with training outcomes.
According to an Army Times article title, Soldier Training is in For a Big Overhaul, Lt. Gen. Benjamin C. Freakley, commander of Accessions Command, says “We sometimes get overly focused on goals — passing a PT test, qualifying with a weapon, learning Army values and being a good follower in basic training.”
“Is that what we want,” Freakley asked, “or do we want soldiers who not only know Army values, but internalize them; who are proud to be a member of a team, and whose pride motivates the team to a higher performance level?”
In my last post, I talked about Leadership Training in Five Ways to Look at Bosses — a Leadership Training Profileand used the military as an example of type of program that gets results. Now, at a more basic level of everyday training, the military is discovering that in today’s complex world of fighting, there is the need for soldiers to adapt quickly and discovering that outcome-based training is better plan and is making changes in how they are training the troops. This is the most sweeping change for military training in general in four decades.
According to the Army Times, the current operational environment as one of “persistent conflict” that is complex and multidimensional, requiring initiative and adaptability at all levels. This, in turn, has led the training community to become less concerned with processes than the outcome of training. As should we the corporate, business and government trainers, whose world is also “complex and multidimensional.” There’s no doubt that initiative and adaptability is also on our list of desirables when training.
While outcome-based education has its naysayers who say it breeds mediocrity by lowering success standards to meet student inadequacy, some training pundits say there can be the tendency to do that with training. They say teachers and schools want the good numbers OBE can deliver at the expense of the students. To make it happen means lowering the standard so everyone is successful; but I disagree that trainers can be tempted to do the same. The Army seems to agree with me that mediocrity is not the goal. It can’t be. How can we avoid mediocrity in the outcome?
Look for Innovation in Process.
Good training needs assessments, established standards and performance requirements and identifying the most desirable results make outcome based training a whole other matter. Don’t compromise the need because it’s difficult to get there. Keep the need and be innovative in the process to find a way to make it happen.
We accept innovation in most processes, especially if it makes the end product more profitable. If we train the same way, aren’t we doing the same thing. We should look at the whole picture, but we get caught up in trying to minimize to maximize the output. We’re still trying to do the same thing here, but putting the focus on the outcome and exploring new techniques to get there. It really doesn’t sound any different than creating a needs assessment, developing a training plan and implementing the training plan to get there. Often, once through the training, we check off training accomplished without really knowing it has taken.
Identify a Standard of Success.
Freakley said the standard for success under Outcome-Based Training is for the drill sergeant and company commander to look at a soldier and ask themselves whether they would feel comfortable taking that individual into combat.
“If the answer is yes, then you have done your job,” he said. “If the answer is no, then we have to determine if the soldier is trainable.
The same should hold for us. Our corporate or business combat is of a different nature, but if we don’t get what we want we should keep trying and adapt. If the job looks impossible we have to move that individual or get rid of him, but I’m for re-training, if he or she is willing, and still wants to be with the company.
In the military, the major objective of outcome-based training is to transform civilian volunteers into soldiers who immediately can contribute to mission accomplishment in their first unit of assignment. Of course the training continues beyond that for each additional mission.
Drill sergeants and other training officials strive to produce soldiers who are:
• Proud team members who possess the character and commitment to live Army values and the warrior ethos.
• Confident, adaptable, mentally agile and accountable for their own actions.
• Physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally ready to fight as a ground combatant.
• Masters of critical combat skills and proficient in basic soldiering skills in all environments.
• Self-disciplined, willing and adaptive thinkers, capable of solving problems commensurate with position and experience.
This is not unlike at all what we want for our trainees; only the specific adjectives are different. We definitely want to train the basics.
Assessment.
If we are process oriented, we may lose sight of the results. You can teach it, but can you use it? This brings me to the assessment portion. How can you tell if your training has been successful. You can ask questions, present hypothetical situations, but reall test is in the results, ironically.
Better yet is to keep adding to the training, provide groups that promote actions that keep us centered on outcomes. We have what we want. Trust our trainees to use the abilities we sought to develop; you can’t go wrong to reinforce the confidence you have in them.
Captain Jean Luc Picard seemed to have the right outcome-based training to handle “complex and multidimensional” situations with “initiative and adaptability.”
An aside. I have always been one to look everywhere for answers, to ask questions, to want to know about a lot of things. Some people want to know how machines work, how computers work, how numbers work; but I’ve always wanted to know what makes people work. Perhaps, that’s the social psychologist in me rather than the trainer.
A book on leadership by Dr. Wes Roberts and Bill Ross from 1989. Some might consider it high on storytelling and low on training explanation, but sometimes a little makes you dig for more once your interest is piqued. Its title: Leadership Lessons from Star Trek-The Next Generation, MAKE IT SO.It does seem to be trait-oriented by they way it is chaptered. The book presents scenes from the series where leadership was on call, when those desired outcomes of training as a Starfleet officer was definitely needed. Captain Jean Luc Picard seemed to have the right outcome-based training to handle “complex and multidimensional” situations with “initiative and adaptability.” Imagine that, and from Hollywood. Do you suppose they had a trainer to advise the writers? It is a different way of looking at leadership and by a reverse look at the results, and it appears the training was outcome based, but that is only my opinion.
Creating a business plan takes a lot of time. But you can get help. Consultants can be valuable, but to save money, find out if there’s a qualified college intern who could carry some of the load. Many college courses require students to participate in internships. With the right intern and a carefully structured project, they can help turn your business concept into something closer to a completed business plan. Here are some tips for developing that perfect internship:
“I don’t think I know anyone who can honestly say that he or she doesn’t want to be a success. Do you?” asks June Melvin Mickens, J.D. of Executive Advantage, LLC, in her E. A. INSIGHT newsletter article, The Good Boss: How to Be (or Recognize) One.
“What’s interesting, though, is that usually many of us talk about wanting to achieve success, but we often spend little, if any, time really figuring out how success in a role looks and how we match up against that externally or self-imposed standard.”
So we have to ask if we are looking at training: “What qualities do people value and respect in superiors, peers, or other leaders?” Again, Mickens has the right idea, and this time I think it can be applied in how we train our leaders and managers.
There is something to be said for learning from other leaders and mentors, but does that in itself develop creative leadership? Finding one's successor is not as easy as passing a baton.
In my Federal agency’s national training center, I developed, managed and trained courses in leadership, management development, train-the-trainer, and customer service. Obviously the most complicated is the Leadership training. It encompasses a variety of techniques and theories, but unlike the other courses mentioned above that can be trained using in a mostly how-to fashion, training leadership is different. But it was the established training so we taught them all. Were these various techniques helpful? Perhaps. More, I think, they were helpful in teaching what leaders should be, and what theories are used to describe leaders than to actually train them to be leaders themselves.
As talked about in various leadership theories, we hear about the The Big Five, referring to the five traits that make a good leader. Let’s see if we can’t take the five points that Mickens refers to that helps identify “The Good Boss” and see how they stack up against the The Big Five. I’m sure there are similarities and differences, but ultimately I think you’ll see yet another way to look at training leaders, bosses, creative management, etc.
“Good bosses are productive,” she says. Most bosses wouldn’t be there if they weren’t productive, but as Mickens maintains, it must be in a good way. Productivity should not go over budget, and should not be without acknowledging the work of others in the process. At work here is intelligence and conscientiousness of The Big Five. Intelligence in the masterminding achieving results and the Conscientiousness, the caring for others.
“Good bosses communicate well.”Leadership theory does reflect that the effective leader must be able to communicate the plan, enlist and motivate others in the execution of the plan. Not only that, as a good communicator, he or she knows that communication goes both ways. So, a good leader listens as much as he or she talks. Good communicators are also observant and know their audience as a good leader should know his or her people.
The fact that good bosses nurture relationships makes sense; it is the way to get work done efficiently and profitably. More importantly, a solid relationship bonds the employee to the company through its leadership. Although some may not agree, I think the long term commitment to company well-being should trump immediate productivity profits.
The idea of personal growth and professional development of not only the leader/boss and his or her employees does, too. As people we all seek growth both inside and outside the organization, and it is important for the leader to model that behavior. “People work diligently for and rally behind leaders whom they know desire, and are helping, to make them stronger,” she says. Although it could be controversial, leaders should seek out opportunities from inside and outside the company for their people as well as themselves in order to grow. The company is not always going to be exactly as it is today. Professional development and personal growth demonstrate forward thinking, a positive for any company.
Mickens’ final factor is leadership, a descriptive profile:
“They are responsible, having learned first to lead themselves effectively and consistently before seeking or accepting the role of leading others. They are good followers, understanding that the respect and effort they afford those who lead them provides a model of respect and effort for those whom they lead. They are accountable, taking seriously the trust placed in them by the organization and by the team, and doing their best to steward that trust well. They are confident, acknowledging the gifts and talents they have been given and, in an assured manner, using those strengths to enhance the organization and its people. They are authentic, not shying away from letting people know the real them — as appropriate, laughing, crying, getting angry, being concerned…being a real person and not a cardboard cutout or an aloof persona. They are thermostats, setting the environment in their teams (and sometimes beyond) rather than thermometers, simply reflecting the temperature of what’s happening around them.”
Taking these factors and looking at them in terms of training leadership may change the way we look at leadership in general. It means we can forget some of the theories and history, or at least de-emphasize them. Focus our training on developing those characteristics that reflect the company image and motivation.
No longer can we think of Leadership training as merely advanced management development with superior communication skills thrown in, or advanced training for a really smart manager whose ideas in the past have proven profitable, or advanced training for the experienced manager.
Are we looking at leadership training programs through professional development, meditation to help them create and innovate, exercises for the brain, muses and mentors? Perhaps, a little, but more than anything we need to simplify and focus on what we want as an outcome. Outcome based training: Isn’t that what we’re after?
What we want to create as an outcome deserves a repeat of what June Mickens says earlier: Leaders that “are thermostats, setting the environment in their teams (and sometimes beyond) rather than thermometers, simply reflecting the temperature of what’s happening around them.”
There is something to be said for learning that comes from other leaders and mentors. However, does that learning in itself develop creative leadership in others, or mimicry of the status quo?
And is there really a difference in a regular leader and a creative leader if we use this current definition. Aren’t all leaders by this definition creative? Independent problem-solving and decision-making, by any expert’s reckoning seem to rank at the top of the traits a leader must exhibit–period. We always say “creative” leaders should think “outside the box” enough to drive a clichéover the cliff, but I’ve yet to come up with a better term. “Outside of the box” thinking is what I expect of any leader, and to do it effectively.
In training programs where we look for emergent leaders it seems mistakes can be made easily.
The simplified definition by Wikipedia says a leader is someone who has the ability to organize others to accomplish a common task. There is the debate between the age-old situational leadership, where a leader could be a leader in some instance and not in others, with the more current individual traits theory that looks to certain traits we will find in the people who accomplish great things. Through this observation, we say leaders must have certain traits to succeed.
With current technology and statistical trends we can develop that further. The times make the man–a throwback to situational theory, but remains true when times are tough, and when there is pressure to survive, some leaders emerge. Certain traits not seen before appear and are applied successfully. The emergent leader that is often seen in the corporate or business world based on perceived performance and dedication to the team effort or company effort is the same emergent leader that is favored in military training. The corporate leader who emerges during a crisis can have the same faults, flaws or imperfections when times change.
In military officer training, regardless of service, field exercise problems are used to observe the behavior of others to see who will lead the group to a solution. Here we are dependent on one theory and leaders may emerge, so may those who are bullies or intimidaters, fierce competitors who yell down others to be center stage. There are also the ones who know the leadership theory and do their best to demonstrate it the observers, natural to their nature or not. Then there are the quiet leaders who wait to be asked for their opinion. If they are appointed the leader, they will emerge as leaders, often better than the ones angling for attention.
In training programs where we look for emergent leaders it seems mistakes can be made easily. However, in all fairness, the military model, not including the “emergent leader” exercise, has many assets to recommend it, most of which have to do with developing character.
The military leadership training program for its officers provides a vehicle for it students to learn to follow before leading.
The military leadership training program to train its officers provides a vehicle for it students to learn to follow before leading. It also teaches the potential leaders:
the acceptance of responsibility,
respect in general, respect for peers, superiors, the uniform, service and country (as well as practice it on a daily basis), and
the art of being their country’s ambassadors and protectors.
These potential leaders also
hold unit positions for which they are held accountable,
learn the art of problem solving,
decision making and
cultivating relationships with others–their employees, peers and superiors, as well as
the expectations to go to war, and
to be confident and proud.
Perhaps it is a good idea to invest in creating your own organizational boot camp. Another idea would be use the Black Belt model I've mentioned before to train leaders in a gradual way, rewarding them for each step of the training they successfully complete.
There is also the expectation that they will continue their professional development training. Promotions are available only when those development goals are reached. I should also point out that not all officers turn out the same, nor maintain an acceptable level of competency or leadership ability. Those who do not get promoted in a certain amount of time are not allowed to remain or may be allowed to retire if they have enough time. This allows for younger, more capable to move up in the workforce.
Obviously not all corporate organizations could follow such an intense model or on a scale equal to the military but it could incorporate training modules that promote behavior desired by the company–behavior that works, but perhaps on an abbreviated scale or as I have written previously about Why Isn’t All Training Like Training for Your Black Belt.
All the elements are there. Am I advocating a leadership training boot camp to accomplish the same goal? They do exist. By the hundreds. Usually they are three- to five-day training retreats offered by a training company. Perhaps it is a good idea to invest in creating your own organizational boot camp. Another idea would be use the Black Belt model I’ve mentioned before to train leaders in a gradual way, rewarding them for each step of the training they successfully complete.
I’ve gone on long enough. Leadership is such a complicated issue it has taken me several articles to cover a small portion of the information and speculation that is available. These are just my thoughts on the subject, and I haven’t been everywhere or done everything. Perspectives and opinions being what they are, I have tried my best to fair and even handed. I am always looking for guest bloggers to give another point of view or provide new information. Be sure to check out my book, The Cave Man’s Guide to Training And Development now available.
Effectively implementing an excellent marketing strategy is the best bet for profitable growth. Such a strategy will be founded on market needs and internal capabilities. It will have at its core, a valuable advantage over your competitors.
The whole company needs to understand what this advantage is. Each person needs to know how they contribute to this advantage.
Bear in mind that the marketing strategy is best if at least each function contributes to developing the plan. Then each department can provide input based on their market contact, as well as the practicalities and impact of the strategy on their department.
That being said, the marketing plan drives the strategy of each functional department.
The marketing strategy drives sales. It determines the customers to focus on – and the prospects to leave alone. It delineates the strengths to sell on, including the overarching advantage of buying from the company. Of course, sales will in turn provide essential feedback on how the plan is working in the field. So, this interaction is critical.
The marketing strategy drives operations. If the strategy is low cost, then ops needs to drive costs out of the product. If it is offering a continuous stream of new products, then ops needs to have the flexibility and expertise to do this cost-effectively.
The marketing strategy drives research and development. It determines whether new products need to be developed much, and the parameters of these products. It also determines the required timing of the product launches.
The marketing strategy also drives finance. It dictates the parameters that need to be monitored and measured. Again, if cost is king, finance needs to ensure the right metrics are being tracked, and to provide the analysis on the success of the strategy.
So, marketing strategy will drive the strategy in the other departments in a company that is geared to grow profitably. Promotional strategy is a piece of the marketing strategy, owned by the marketing department. But marketing strategy is much bigger than that, holding the keys to competitive advantage and therefore profitable growth.
Groupon seems to have recently arrived at the social enterprise sector. Many SEs have applied for participation in Groupon promotions, and a few have been picked. Results so far have been mixed, in terms of long-term benefit to the social enterprise. And there are folks who would prefer to avoid Groupon, in part because of their Superbowl ads, which ridiculed social change and the nonprofit sector. Fortunately, there are now a few “social” alternatives to Groupon.
Once you have identified a promising federal grant opportunity, and before you invest the “usual” time and energy, you should first determine if this federal opportunity is for you…or not !!
The Five Basic Questions
Once you have carefully studied the grant guidelines, you should be able to address the following:
1. Are you eligible? In the section on “Eligible Applicants” are the parameters
for who can apply. Some federal grant programs are restricted to specific
states or certain kinds of organizations.
2. What is the deadline? The section labelled “Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications” will make it pretty clear if you have enough time to develop a
great application. You will need at least a month to develop a highly
competitive application.
3. What is the award size? Look in the section on “Estimated Average Award
Size.” You should know your total project cost and compare that number to
the size of the grant award. There is an economy of scale in developing
federal proposals. Requesting a small amount of grant funds may be almost
as time-consuming as requesting 10 times that amount.
4. What are your chances of receiving an award? This info is in the
“Estimated Number of Awards” section. If the federal program is
only going to award a few grants, you should consider not applying …
because the competition is going to be very fierce. Better to focus
on federal grant programs where the mathematical odds are more in
your favor.
5. Is my project directly related to the grant guidelines? Look at the
description of the grant program. Does your organization have the same
mission as the grant program? Will your grant application directly address
the goals and objectives of the grant program? If the answer to both
questions is yes, than this grant program may be for you.
Just Say No
If you do your homework, you will uncover many potential federal grant opportunities. You should not, however, even think about applying to all of them. After a while, when you’ve developed a good process for reviewing
those federal grant opportunities, you will find yourself deciding not to
bid on most of them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dr. Jayme Sokolow, founder and president of The Development Source, Inc. helps nonprofit organizations develop proposals to government agencies, foundations, and corporations. He can be contacted at Jayme Sokolow.
We Value Your Privacy We use cookies to better serve our customers through site functionality and user personalization.
We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data. This includes unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalized ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights.
With your permission, we and our partners may use precise geolocation data and identification through device scanning. You may click to consent to our processing as described above. Alternatively, you may click to refuse to consent or access more detailed information. You may also change your preferences before consenting.
Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing. Your preferences will apply to this website only. You can change your preferences at any time by returning to this site or by visiting our privacy policy.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
I’m okay with functional and analytical cookies for website functionality. I agree to the use of cookies under these circumstances:
Will be used if you visit Managementhelp.org
Are necessary for the proper functioning of the website
Enable you to use the site securely
Do not collect personal information that’s not needed for personalization
Help us detect any bugs and improve our website
Collect anonymous information about your visits to our website
Are never used for remarketing
I’m okay with the functional and analytical cookies for marketing purposes and not for website functionality.
Are used to monitor the performance of marketing campaigns
Enable us to compare performance across our marketing campaigns
Are used for individual targeting
Can be used for retargeting on other partner platforms
Enable a more personalized experience
Searching for a new job is hard work. In fact, it can be the toughest “job” you’ll ever have.
