Category Archives: Success Metrics

May 13, 2016 · 9:19 am

Recruiting, Retaining, and Engaging Millennials (and Everyone Else) in Associations

UnknownYou are reading it everywhere:  millennials have different expectations for a member experience than other demographic groups.   Their history of social experience, being “digital natives” having come of age with social media, and the resultant values and norms create challenges for many associations who have built structures and features of membership primarily for boomers.

Ironically, while millennials will be driving change, as they will be 75% of the workforce by 2025, we are now in a period where the expectations of all demographic segments are changing as technology and social becomes embedded in the culture.   Almost all demographic groups have adopted social interaction on the web, from reviews on Amazon, Yelp, etc., to social platforms.  While millennials are the demographic that associations need to attract and retain to create lifetime value and members, the principles necessary for success matter to every age group at this point.

So how do we assess relevance and create a better context for success as leaders?  Boil down the research and literature, and what millennials (and others) are saying they want from associations can be summed up like this:

  • Connect me to people and give me relationships I can’t find easily elsewhere—including with you as an organization.  Organizations that primarily emphasize features or benefits of membership seem to have no personality—or transparency.  The impression is that the association is conducting transactions with customers, not having dialogue with a connected network of members.  Connect me with others, talk to me about why you are doing what you are, why it matters, and what should happen if we, together, are successful.  Most importantly:  listen to what I think is important, and show me that I have been heard.
  • Personalize my experience and value. In a nutshell, don’t try to sell me 800 cable channels for $200 a month.  Show that you know what matters to me, and deliver it without me having to wade through a multi-page channel guide to see if there might be something that’s interesting or important to me.
  • Tell me things I don’t know, that I need to know to grow and advance.  Deliver curated and relevant knowledge and information that is reliable.  Push it to me, so that I have access to the information early, and in a digestible manner.  Think of what I can read on my phone while waiting in the Starbucks line.
  • Relate what you—we—are doing and and what we stand for to a higher social value and meaning.  What difference is the organization trying to make, and how it is connected to my values about greater good?  Show me that, and you will win my loyalty and commitment.

You can run a test of these characteristics through everything you do as an association.  You can look at your communications (do you have a listening strategy, btw?), your programming, your membership recruitment/retention appeals, the messages your leaders give when they go to speak, and more.  On these measures, how do you scale?

1 Comment

Filed under Associations, Executive Directors, Identity and Branding, Leadership, Recruitment and Retention, Success Metrics, Sustaining Excellence

Tagged as , , , , , ,

May 11, 2016 · 10:22 am

Sustaining the Capacity for Leadership

 

adams-quote-2

During a question and answer period at a recent professional meeting, I was asked how I sustained the capacity for leadership over time. It was a great question—one that I had thought about previously and a lot more since that event.

First, for me, leadership is behavior, not position. We’ve all known or seen individuals who have positions of leadership that we wouldn’t choose to follow. And we’ve also seen others, who didn’t have official positions of leadership who, nevertheless, commanded respect of others who would follow them almost anywhere. Some characteristics that have been well written about that determine leadership include such things as commitment to clear principles and values, the ability to articulate a compelling “why” for the direction that is chosen, and an ability to help others identify and maximize their unique contributions to the cause and direction of the leader. But the question still remains: in a world of so much noise and distraction, and with competing priorities all of which may have validity and meaning, how does someone maintain focus and consistency over time? What disciplines provide the best soil for leadership to grow?

I strive to be consistent in four disciplines (albeit imperfectly) that center my life and prepare me for service, whether as a leader or a follower. They are:

1. Spiritual Discipline. By this I do not necessarily mean a religious discipline, although certainly that can be a central component. But to be centered as a person and as a designated leader, I have found it essential to take time, preferably daily, to focus myself in a spiritual sense. The disciplines include journaling, reflection, meditation/prayer, and other activities aimed at keeping me focused on the greater part of who I am—my greater angels.
2. Mental Discipline. I try to make it a point to keep at least three non-fiction books going at any given time—usually a biography that provides some human/historical learning, a business book that gives insight/skills, and a “free choice” that may include anything from a book on guitars to the bucket list scuba dives that I want to do. One aspect of sustaining leadership is to foster intellectual curiosity, and while that may come naturally for some, I find that I can get so busy doing the tasks of the day that if I don’t name it as a specific discipline it can be one of those important things I don’t do consistently.
3. Creative Discipline. Aside from the mental discipline of trying to learn and be intellectually curious, I find it critical to also engage creatively as a conscious exercise in life. I have been a musician at some level of proficiency for many years, both as a writer and performer. The wonderful thing about undertaking a creative discipline is that one is almost required to approach creativity with a “beginner’s mind.” Whether writing, playing an instrument, painting, or any other creative endeavor, one enters creativity with a sense of wonder, and (for me, at least, some degree of feeling of incompetence!). Of course, Picasso didn’t start out as Picasso, either. But the creative process forces me to a place of learning and wonder (and sometimes frustration), that provides not only focus that is different from my daily tasks, but that also teaches me anew what it is like to be a learner. I believe this is a vital bit of knowledge and empathy for any leader.
4. Physical Discipline. Part of sustaining the capacity to serve or lead is to make sure that one has the physical stamina, capability, and health to do so. Study after study indicates that we are too sedentary, and “under-dose” ourselves with physical exertion and exercise. It’s important to work the heart and the body, and to sweat regularly! It is also important to pay attention to diet and sleep. Leaders–particularly those whose work is mostly cerebral or relational, need the endorphin kick of exercise to renew themselves, and sufficient rest to rejuvenate.

These disciplines don’t guarantee that anyone will be appointed to a position of leadership. But engaged in consciously and consistently provides the best context for a life of meaning, depth, and service, out of which the best leadership can flow.

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Leadership, Personal Growth and Development, Success Metrics, Sustaining Excellence

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

July 25, 2013 · 1:02 pm

Creating Collaborative Relationships Between Components and a Central Organization

images

Components of nonprofits and associations come in all shapes and sizes.  Some component structures are organized along geographic lines, some along specialty or interest.  Organizations like the American Medical Association or the American Psychological Association have components of both types.

Unfortunately, tensions develop between components and a central organization at times.  These tensions arise around resources, priorities, membership issues, policies or programs, organizational political issues, or even personality conflicts between staff or elected leaders.  When boiled down to their essence, though, the underlying concerns in conflicts are:  1) who gets to decide what (autonomy vs. control) 2) who has the resources to act on issues of perceived importance (and how and under what conditions those resources will be shared), and 3) who is accountable for what outcomes.

When these tensions are mixed into social media where the “hub and spoke” model of components are easily replaced by network models of interaction, the context can become more challenging, both for components and for a central organization.  While social engagement creates many opportunities that empower components (and individual members—another topic to be addressed later) like never before, it can also make tensions that previously were more “closely held” very visible, whether to members or the general public.

Clearly, the key to moderating or eliminating these tensions is through continual relationship building and communication.  However, frequent turnover of volunteer leaders, and the fact many components of organizations may be more volunteer than staff driven makes this difficult.  And it is surprising in survey results and in conversation that a significant number of organizations do not have specific written agreements with their components that provide specifics about the three thematic issues identified above.

Some of these questions may be answered by structure.  The more autonomous the component, the more likely it is that the component has more autonomy in programming, resources, and accountability for outcomes.  The more “closely held” the component (where membership is required at both the central and component level, like the National Association of Social Workers, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, or the American Dental Association (which has a tripartite membership structure), the more important it is that these themes be addressed in charters, contract, memoranda of understanding, etc. between components and the central.  Organizations that are structured on a federated model have many similar issues, although more power, etc., may belong to the components than the central organization.

Do you have a formal agreement that specifies power sharing/decision making authority between components and central?  Resource distribution and sharing?  Who has accountability for which outcomes, and implications of not meeting mutually agreed upon obligations?  Is there a clear understanding about what conditions would cause a breach in the relationship, and what the implications of that breach might be?

The goal, always, is to have positive, synergistic, and collaborative relationships between components and a central organization.  Baseline, those relationships begin with a clear understanding about the nature, structure, and expectations of the relationship.  Do you have that with your counterparts?  How long has it been since you had a relationship checkup?

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Leadership, Resource Development, Success Metrics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

July 5, 2013 · 12:25 pm

One Problem with Budgets

imagesWe’ve probably all seen it.  It is near the end of a fiscal period, and someone with line authority for a budget sees they have money left.  The thinking then becomes, “Good, I’ve got some money to spend,” or alternatively, “If I don’t spend this money down, I won’t get it next year, so I need to zero this budget line out now.”

Unfortunately, this is not what is meant by zero based budgeting.  (Tongue in cheek intended.)  But too many nonprofit or association staff, who are not financial professionals, or who have never been trained in strategic planning and budgeting, end up with this kind of perspective about their budgets.  And while there can be an ongoing conceptual debate about overhead in nonprofits and how they are viewed by evaluators, funders, etc.,  the reality is at the ground level of programming and budgeting this thinking can be a problem for executive directors who have overall management responsibility for outcomes and finances.

What underlies this thinking is the notion that a budget is permission to spend, more than a planning document to achieve outcomes.  And while the concept of zero based budgeting was created largely to address this issue, I have seen very few associations or nonprofits that do zero based budgeting in a meaningful way.

Staff may also get trapped in this thinking by vendors or sales people.  When planning for a program, product, etc., it is not uncommon to have a sales person ask staff, “so what is your budget for this project?”  We all know what happens then—you end up setting your price, even if you might have gotten a lower one, and that becomes the starting point for many negotiations.  Personally, we see it most clearly when we go car shopping.

There is a process I have used with staff to address the notion of impact and priority more than cost.  At the largest, most strategic level, we ask what must be done in the next two years to accomplish the organization’s strategic objectives.  Then we work on three specific concepts:  priority, alignment, and sequencing.

Priority determines what is most important.  Alignment helps focus on marshaling resources so that everything points in some way toward those most important priorities.  Sequencing, of course, is about what has to come first, second, etc., in order to achieve the priorities. (This can then be broken down into annual cycles/periods, for planning and fiscal year concerns).  With these three dimensions of planning, many times I have been able to create multiple impacts on investment.  Simply put, if you do the right things first, second, and third, with programming and resources aligned correctly, you may not have to do the fourth and fifth thing to achieve your goals and objectives.

At that point, staff doesn’t have a budget.  But, they are tasked then with developing a plan.  It is not uncommon for them to ask, “how do I plan without a budget?”  The answer I have given is this:  “You know the outcomes we want to achieve.  Develop three different plans that have a legitimate chance to reach those objectives.  For the sake of differentiating them, we will call them the Cadillac, Buick, and Volkswagen plans (although these days I use Mercedes, Toyota, and Kia).   Obviously, the Mercedes plan may be more “comfortable” than the Kia plan. But they all should get us where we want to go.

When we have plans for the most important priorities, have aligned and sequenced our activities so that they all support them appropriately, we are then able to evaluate the various plans and levels of investment to achieve different objectives.  Many times we find further synergy and alignment—more impacts for dollars invested.  Many times we can then be more creative in programming and collaboration.  It forces different departments, managers, etc., to work collaboratively, helping to break down silos.  And everyone—from the Board through all staff—is able to see how the work moves forward—how the parts connect to the whole.

There is more detail about the process than one can write in a blog post.  The “dollars” part of the budgeting process doesn’t really come until the end.  And even then, decisions are made on a rolling basis, both annually, and even quarterly as managers, the Exec, and the Board plan and evaluate at their respective levels.

Working this way can be more challenging.  At the Board level, there must be real clarity about priority of goals and outcomes.  At the staff level, there must be a culture of collaboration not competition for resources.  It is sometimes hard for individuals who have measured some of their prestige, importance, authority, etc., by the size of the budget they control to shift to a way of thinking where specific lines of budget authority do not tell the tale of organizational impact or importance.  However, the process fundamentally changes the concept of budgeting, and the notion that a budget is simply a la carte permission to spend.  It can lead to much more creative thinking about resources, and how to marshal and use them.

How do you budget?  What happens toward the end of your fiscal year?  Are you satisfied with the process?

1 Comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Resource Development, Strategic Planning, Success Metrics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 22, 2013 · 4:10 pm

Resources: You May Have More Than You Think!

thThe story is told of a sign in a Pentagon procurement office that said, “Better, Faster, Cheaper:  Pick Any Two.”  While humorous in a way, we recognize some (painful) truth in the statement.

In a parallel way, leaders in nonprofit organizations also have three types of resources (and therefore choices) at their disposal.  To maximize the impact of an organization’s programming and vision, we need to build a strategy using all three.

The three types of resources every organization has are Time, Money, and People.  Typically we think first (and sometimes only) of money as the basic resource to drive an organization’s progress. You read often that fund development is the chief priority for an organization—and that would be true for any organization these days, really. The type of algorithm in the Pentagon sign exists, no doubt.  If you have less money, you may have to find ways to maximize your “people” resource.  If you don’t have a lot of either, then time may become a resource—it may take longer to achieve your objective, but there are ways to use time to build your programming as well.

We all know about financial budgeting and management, but I’ve also seen organizations create very successful advocacy campaigns using people power.  Organizations can succeed primarily using the intellectual capital and of their volunteers or their profession.  However, I’ve seen many fewer organizations that actually consider creating a human capital budget, or that even know how many hours or to what end they have volunteers contributing over any given cycle.

Have you done a “human capital” (people) assessment of your organization?  Do you know how you are spending volunteers’ energy and commitment, and how that relates to your strategic priorities?  Do you have a human capital development plan that will help build the strategic capacity of your organization?  This resource can be as vital, and sometimes more vital, than having funds to spend on certain initiatives.

Time is also an asset.  Occasionally, we don’t have much of it, or we use it to create and drive an agenda.  The National Breast Cancer Coalition, for example, has identified the year 2020 as the deadline to end breast cancer.  It is using time as an asset, to create urgency for people and funding.

Some things are calendar driven, and must be considered in light of deadlines.  Then again, there is a saying that “Time cures.”  Do you ask, when considering an issue, whether it requires money, people, or time?  Time can be used another way: in sequencing well.  For some issues, if you do the right things first (using time correctly) you may not have to do several other things—they may take care of themselves.

Take the opportunity to do a global assessment of your organization’s strategic capacity in these three areas.  How does your organization consider, count, and use its’ people, its’ time, and then, its’ money.  By being conscious in this assessment, you may well find resources you didn’t know you had, or be able to capitalize and deploy the resources you have in a more effective way.

1 Comment

Filed under Board Development, Executive Directors, Resource Development, Success Metrics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

May 7, 2013 · 11:44 pm

Two Reasons Associations Are Not, and Should Never Be, Like For Profit Corporations

     MR900432538

      We are told almost continuously that associations and nonprofits must be more like businesses to thrive, and perhaps even to survive. Associations Now ran an article just yesterday talking about how difficult it is to get nonprofits to be more like for profits.   Early on in that article, there was a link to a Google search that showed how prevalent this theme is.  I believe there are two compelling and inherent ways that associations and nonprofits are not, and should never be, like their for profit counterparts.

Associations and Nonprofits Keep Score Differently than For Profit Counterparts

For Profit Corporations exist to create wealth, whether for owners, partners, or shareholders.  By definition, that is why they exist.  If they don’t do that, they don’t stay in business very long.  While associations and nonprofits should strive to use best practice business methods, metrics, and management, and always aim for a healthy balance sheet, they are mission and values based organizations.

No one (not stockholders, owners, partners, donors, or even members) owns associations or nonprofits.  They are “owned” by their mission, and by the values embedded that define the means and methods they will use to achieve that mission.  There is something about the DNA of associations and nonprofits that makes them “look like” for profit counterparts, but genetically, they are different because of this fact.  To forget that, or worse, simply ignore it, in the interest of being “businesslike” is to abandon a unique and specific identity and purpose.

 Associations and Nonprofits Have Volunteer Human Capital as a Major Asset

The article in Associations Now referenced above basically bemoans the fact that Boards get in the way of nonprofits being more businesslike, extending the decision cycle, etc., and perhaps making things a bit messier while doing it.  I’m all for Boards being well equipped, oriented, understanding their role, and allowing qualified staff to do their jobs, etc., but again, there is something in the DNA of associations and nonprofits that is different than for profits.

For profits simply do not have volunteers, who are consistently willing to give their time, energy, and money, on behalf of the purpose of the organization, with no expectation of direct monetary/wealth return.  For associations and nonprofits, volunteer time, energy, commitment, and funds are again, in the DNA.  Something unique happens in organizations when volunteers participate.

Those who are willing to give time, energy, and money to a cause, to make something different, to be change agents, end up being changed themselves.  The changers also become the changed.  That is about identity, purpose, values, commitments, etc., that make the world more human, and I haven’t yet bought into the notion that corporations are human, my friend.  I’ve never yet met a corporation that I wanted as a true friend and intimate.  To reduce volunteerism to a point that it becomes little more than a FaceBook “like” is to cheapen what it means to support and give yourself to something greater than you are.

Say what you will about associations and nonprofits being efficient, effective, and using all appropriate business tools to be the best they can be in service to their mission, and in having the resources to do it, and knowing when they have achieved success.  Associations and nonprofits should do all of those things.  But let’s not change their DNA.  We lose way too much.

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, General, Success Metrics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

April 29, 2013 · 8:19 pm

Three Questions Executive Directors Want Answered about Social Media

IMG_0058

There is no hotter topic than association and nonprofit use (and metrics) of social media.  The data of the latest benchmark report on nonprofits and social media takes a while to digest, and even longer to determine relevance for any particular organization.  A benchmark does not provide any particular guide to strategy, especially if almost every organization is still struggling with issues of ROI and meaningful metrics.

I admit, as an Executive Director of 20 years experience I had questions about my association’s investment in social media.  In talking with my peers, (most of whom are also boomers), I found that my questions weren’t only mine.  One colleague said, “So, we get 10,000 likes on our Facebook page.  What does that mean?  And in the long run, how does that benefit our organization?”

Boiling down the conversations I have had with colleagues over the past couple of years, the questions come down to these:

1)       How does our investment in social media lead to an increase in conversion or retention?  Can we show that our investment in social media increases membership or product sales, or retains members?   There can be a lot of discussion about engagement, but I’m sorry to report this fact: many Executive Directors may feel that engagement on social media only is a kind of discounted engagement.  It is easy to click “like” or to follow a link, but if that doesn’t lead to measurable benefit for the organization in terms of revenue, there may be continued skepticism about the level of investment made by staff.

2)     How does our investment in social media enhance our organization’s reputation as the preeminent source of information/expertise among our communities of interest?  There may be many communities of interest…but of particular importance for many organizations (especially if the #1 question is difficult to answer), is whether others begin (or increase) their use of information provided by the organization.  For example,  as the association of which I was Executive Director, The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, increased its presence in social media, we directly increased calls from reporters for “mainstream” media outlets (the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.).  These reporters want further information on material AAMFT had published or stories they were writing, or to use as sources for new articles.  In addition to online links, pingbacks, etc., this created an external measure of impact for our social media activities.  Social media led to earned media exposure for the organization itself.

3)     How does our investment in social media translate into use and assimilation of the organization’s (or members’) positions, advocacy or public education initiatives, or member’s business/social interests?  The key word here is translation.  Can you measure third party use or adoption of positions, statements, or key strategic messages from investment in social media.  This doesn’t mean that an organization has to produce something that goes viral, although that certainly could be one metric.  The Oregon Dental Association created the public service announcement BRUSHY, that scored several hundred thousand hits in a number of days.  By that measure it was a great success!  Now, is there a way to tell how many kids watched it, as opposed to dentists?  And is it used by pediatric dental offices for patients?  As an Executive Director, that is one question I want an answer to:  does the work translate out of the virtual world?

A social media strategy can be built that will aim at any of these three questions.  Metrics can be established that are organization/campaign specific that will help define the value and success of efforts in social media.  For many executive directors, who have to manage multiple priorities, budgets, and politics, the more practical the metrics, the more relevance of social media investments.

I’d love to hear comments or reactions to these questions and ideas.

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Social Media, Success Metrics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

April 23, 2013 · 6:08 pm

Three Core Elements of Executive Director Success

Causeway

It has been axiomatic among Executive Directors that mishandling money or politics will get you fired.  But what elements are absolutely necessary for success?

When you boil it all down, it comes to these:

Create Results.  No Executive Director will survive today without creating results.  While there can be a lot of talk about meaningful, measurable goals, etc., you must understand how success is defined in your organization, and you must demonstrate your ability to lead successfully to that definition of success.  Many times Executive Directors fail because they reach success in their eyes, but that is not how success is defined by key stakeholders.

Build Relationships.   In associations and non-profits, perhaps more than any other enterprise, the ability to build relationships is vital to success.  This is so because a major component of the work is with volunteers, who not only expect the organization to provide value, but also have a stake in it that in many ways is as profound as that of the CEO.  For association and nonprofit leaders, those voluntary relationships represent most of the people with whom you will be interacting.  If you cannot build relationships there, and even more importantly, if you do not have a plan to continue expanding your circle of influence, you will ultimately fail.

Today, with the multi-generational workforce, by the way, the same dynamic is true.  While a CEO has no peer relationships on staff, if s/he cannot build collaborative relationships with staff, the possibility of success diminishes greatly.  The model of “command and control” in a staff team is no longer a credibly viable way to achieve success in most associations and nonprofits.

Manage Transitions.   Again, more than for profit businesses, associations and non-profits have more transitions.  Aside from normative staff turnover, boards, committees, task forces, etc., all have defined terms of office.  There is constant transition of leaders, opinions, stakeholder groups, etc.  If an Executive Director does not pay attention to, plan for, and ensure smooth transitions, trouble lies ahead.  And this is just in the internal process of the organization.  Outside, there are changing conditions, shifts in political context and alliances, and changes with collaborators and competitors.  Too many balls get dropped, with harmful consequences, when CEOs do not focus on the transitions and create opportunity with them instead of obstacle

All of these elements are necessary, but any of them alone–or even any two of them–is insufficient.  And we could mine all of these for a lot of other embedded ingredients. But at the core level, these elements begin to give you a map of the territory that you must traverse to be successful as an Executive Director.

If you look at your work today, you can identify where you are in a continuum with these three core elements.  You will then be able to create a plan to address them, building success not only for your organization, but also for yourself.

Carry on, and remember the big three!

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Success Metrics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,