Carter McNamara – Page 18 – Management Library

May 21, 2010August 17, 2022

Are You Doing OD? Training? Consulting? Coaching? All of These?

OD vs. Training – Or Is It?

I’ve watched over the years as various fields and professions form firm interpretations of others. For example, many Organization Development practitioners almost look down on training as scoped to working only with individuals and not the broader context of organizations as does OD (by the way, we OD’rs prefer that you capitalize the name of our field 🙂

Yet when asked for definitions of OD, they seem loathe to scope the role of OD at all. If definitions of OD are offered, they usually assert that OD is based on changing systems, especially through use of systems principles. They’ll even assert that OD can include training, as well as many other “interventions,” such as coaching and facilitating.

Coaching vs. Consulting – Or Is It?

Similarly, many coaches see consulting as being limited to giving advice. When asked for definitions of coaching, they assert that coaching is always being other-directed and based primarily on questioning. They might add, “So coaching is not consulting. It’s coming from people, rather than at them.”

Do We Tend to Glamorize Our Own Work?

Yet trainers are some of the most systems-based people I know – those skills aren’t limited to OD. Effective trainers in a group setting can transform a group of people. So, if the trainer is especially effective, is the trainer now an OD practitioner? Also, OD can include training, but does that mean the practitioner is no longer doing OD when he/she is merely “training”?

Similarly, an effective consultant can have a big bag of tools, just like an effective coach. A consultant can use questioning (“coaching”?) and advice (“consulting”?), depending on the needs of the client and the context of the project at the time.

I’m not claiming we always have the wrong definitions of these fields. I think the ongoing exploration of each field is to advantage of ourselves and our clients.

However, I am suggesting that we be as fair when describing other fields as when describing our own.

What do you think?

—————————

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.

May 20, 2010August 17, 2022

“Core” Coaching Skills — The 20% That Get’s The 80% of Results

from guest writer Carter McNamara of Authenticity Consulting, LLC

Many Coaching Models Have Certain Approaches in Common

About 15 years ago, I had the privilege of studying a variety of coaching models. When people asked me which model was best, I always answered that it was the last model I had studied.

Each model seemed tremendously powerful — because each had certain practices in common. I came to realize that those common practices in coaching seemed to make the biggest difference for those being coached. I came to call them “core” coaching skills. Since then I’ve incorporated them into a process I call “peer coaching groups.”

“Core” Coaching Skills — The 20% That Gets 80% of Results

I had realized that the experience of having someone —

Ask me what’s important to me now, what do I want to accomplish.
Ask me questions about how I came to identify that priority.
Ask me what success would look like if I addressed my priority.
Ask me about my nature, how I like to work on priorities in my life.
Ask me what relevant and realistic actions I might take to address my current priority.
Ask me what I’m learning as I’m working to address the priority.

— was extremely powerful. All of the models seemed to include this or a very similar sequence of questioning.

Core Coaching Skills Are Accessible to All

The process is so clear and straightforward to apply that almost anyone can be of tremendous help to another person, to members in a group — or to him/herself by posing those, or similar, questions.

That’s one of the features that makes the coaching process so very powerful. I’ve watched 100s — if not 1,000s — of people around the world use core coaching skills to help others transform themselves and their work.

Many people might strongly criticize me for suggesting that coaching is a simple process. I’m not suggesting that. I’m suggesting there’s a central set of techniques is very powerful. Certainly, these can be embellished in many ways — and an explosion of coaching schools have done that.

I’ve watched as the field has become a profession for many, including codes of ethics and credentialing. I look back very fondly on those early years where so many people watched this wondrous new field become so popular to so many — and for good reason.

What do you think?

For more resources, see the Library topic Personal and Professional Coaching.

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, 2010February 18, 2022

How Much Should Your Board Be Involved in Management?

Group of business professionals in a business meeting room

Experts often have very strong beliefs and feelings about what should be the extent of involvement of Board members in making top-level policies versus in implementing those policies in the day-to-day affairs of the organization. Those experts usually assert that Board members should attend primarily to the top-level policies.

However, various factors influence how involved Board members are in policy-making versus in “management,” that is, in implementing the policies.

New and small organizations might have rather hands-on Board members because those organizations usually have very little in resources, particularly in expertise and funding.
Larger, established organizations usually have members who attend primarily to top-level planning and policies because those organizations have adequate resources to effectively implement the plans and policies.
If Board members have little confidence in the CEO, there have been frequent operational problems, or the CEO is leaving the organization, then Board members often are more involved in management affairs — at least temporarily.
Very autocratic cultures usually place strong value on respecting the role of top-level leaders, in which case Board members (perceived as being very top-level leaders) would probably not be involved in the more subordinate management affairs.
Very egalitarian cultures that highly value equal treatment and participation of all people might perceive Board members and employees as having somewhat equal influence in the affairs of the organization, in which case the members might be more involved in management than typically expected.
If an organization has been struggling to work toward its mission and top-level priorities, then Board members should probably focus much more on policy making. That helps to ensure that the priorities are indeed relevant and realistic, and are effectively being addressed.

Regardless of the level of involvement of Board members in the affairs of management, the members have to attend to top-level policy at various times — members can’t delegate those top-level responsibilities to anyone else in the organization.

What do you think?

May 10, 2010February 18, 2022

Strategic Planning or Business Planning?

Creative planning techniques for an organization

It seems that the two phrases “strategic planning” and “business planning” are used interchangeably, much more than ever. I believe it’s better to see the phrases as different than to generalize them as the same.

Strategic Planning Should Be Organization-Wide

Strategic planning is best viewed as clarifying the overall purpose and priorities of the organization. There are many different ways to do strategic planning, and the contents of the plan vary, depending on the purpose of the planning. However, the focus of the planning should primarily be organization-wide.

Business Planning Should Be Product- or Service-Specific

Business planning is best viewed as planning for a specific product or service. The customers and clients for a particular product or service might be very different than for another product or service. You wouldn’t advertise or sell race cars the same way you’d advertise or sell minivans. Each needs a different business plan.

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.

May 10, 2010February 18, 2022

Board Orientation vs. Training vs. Development

Woman having a training session with a board member

When you ask Board members if they’ve been trained, it’s not uncommon that they’ll answer, “Yes”. But many times, they’ll be wrong.

Board Orientation

Board orientation is about the unique aspects of the organization. It might include introductions and team building among Board members, overviews of the organization’s products and services, celebration of the organization’s successes, review of various Board policies, and clarification of when meetings occur. The content of this orientation depends very much on the particular organization. Board orientations are very useful for giving Board members an understanding of the organization they are governing.

Board Training

Board training is about the roles and responsibilities of any governing Board, that is, of any Board of a corporation, whether it be for-profit or nonprofit. The training would review the fiduciary duties of Board members and what members should do to fulfill each of those duties. The content of this training might be very similar across different organizations, although it would be modified slightly for certain differences between for-profit and nonprofit Boards (largely regarding Sarbanes Oxley and SEC regulations). Board training is useful to orient members to a country’s rules and regulations that govern corporations.

Board Development

Board development includes a variety of activities intended to raise the quality of the Board’s operations up to a new level. Board development might include a Board evaluation, orientation, training, organization of committees or task forces, coaching to the Board Chair, development of certain Board policies, and a post-evaluation of the Board. Board development is extremely useful to help a Board to significantly improve its operations, for example, its recruiting, orientating, training, organizing, meetings, decisions and policies.

So the next time you’re thinking about the needs of your Board, consider whether you need Board orientation, training and/or development.

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.

May 10, 2010August 15, 2022

Reactive Versus Planful Nonprofits

A group of nonprofit colleagues working on a project plan

I’ve worked with nonprofit organizations for a very long time. I’ve noticed two distinctly different approaches to leading: reactive versus proactive. You’ll very likely notice each of the two distinctly different types in the following paragraphs.

Fundraising

The reactive nonprofit is continually fundraising and then spending whatever funds are obtained — so the organization is in a continual state of fundraising. The proactive organization sets a fundraising target and raises funds until that target is hit. Then the organization directs more energies to the rest of the organization, especially to programs.

Source of Leadership

The reactive organization is led by a person, usually the Executive Director. He/she staffs the Board with members who are expected primarily to do fundraising. The proactive organization is led by a strong working relationship between the Board and Executive Director, with emphasis primarily on planning and implementing those plans.

Sustainability

The reactive organization sees sustainability as a matter of having enough funds. The proactive organization see sustainability as being realistic in everything it does — because if the organization is not realistic, then it will not have enough resources, which will lead it into an unsustainable situation.

(Astute readers might recognize the signs of a reactive organization as very similar to the signs of an organization with Founders Syndrome.)

What do you think?

——————

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

May 2, 2010February 18, 2022

Use Grand Vision and Strategic Vision in Strategic Planning

A vision, during strategic planning, is depiction of the organization and its customers at some point in the future. Like mission statements, there are many different perspectives about what should be in a vision statement.

Vision statements can depict the overall result sought by the organization. They also can be used to inspire and motivate members of the organization. However, depending on the culture of the organization, vision statements can breed distrust and cynicism if they’re used only for that reason. Also, because they can be so very broad in nature, they often don’t provide focus and direction during planning. That’s why it’s useful to have a grand vision and a strategic vision in planning.

What’s a Grand Vision?

A grand vision is broad depiction of the organization and preferably its stakeholders as they will be far into the future, for example, “Our organization is seen world-wide as the most respected in our industry, and our customers agree our services are a benchmark in our industry.”

What’s a Strategic Vision?

A strategic vision is depiction of the organization and its customers as they will be shortly after implementing the strategic plan, for example, “Our organization commands 10% market share in our industry, as a result of market expansion and increase in sales across those markets.” The strategic vision can provide clear focus and direction for planners during planning and later on when implementing the plan.

Use Both Grand Vision and Strategic Vision in Your Planning

You might start by having planners articulate a grand vision that is truly inspirational and motivational to all members of the organization. Don’t stop there. Either at the beginning of planning or near the end when planners have discussed goals for the plan, articulate a strategic vision that provides clear focus and direction.

What do you think?

Here’s many more resources about strategic planning.

May 2, 2010August 17, 2022

Use Grand Visions and Strategic Visions for Change

Business strategy concept with chess pieces

It’s common in change-management projects to have a vision for change. It’s very useful to have clients consider both a grand vision and a strategic vision. We do this in our consultant training services, and the consultants usually greatly appreciate that approach. Grand visions and strategic visions can be used in strategic planning, as well.

A grand vision is a very broad and long-range depiction of what the organization (and preferably its stakeholders) will be like, as a result of the project, for example, “We’re the most respected organization in our industry.”

A strategic vision is depiction of what the organization will be like soon after having finished the project for change, for example, “Our business units are closely aligned and our operations are more efficient, resulting in a 20% decrease in operating costs.”

Too often, only grand visions are used in projects for change and in strategic planning. While they initially are great for motivating people, they often don’t give clear focus and direction for people undertaking those activities. A strategic vision can provide that clear focus and direction, especially at a time when people seem increasingly cynical about projects for change and strategic planning.

In your next projects and plans, consider using grand visions and strategic visions.

What do you think?

—————————

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