Tag Archives: #assn

March 31, 2014 · 7:19 am

Three Dimensions For Building and Sustaining a Meaningful Culture

UnknownOne question that I am asked—and ask myself routinely—is how to build and sustain a meaningful culture in an organization. While leaders may aspire to somewhat different traits in a culture (trust, productivity, engagement, a service orientation, etc.), all who are serious about the quest look for resources, tools, etc., to be successful.

There is good news and bad news in this search. The good news is that it is possible to build and sustain a positive culture that embodies the traits a leader seeks, through hiring well, building systems and processes, and defining a vision that connects what people do with why they do it.  The recent book by Simon Sinek, Start with Why, gives a basis for the “why” as a foundation to get to the “how.”

The “bad news” is that any leader who believes s/he can build and sustain a meaningful culture with a set of tools, processes, techniques, or even compelling vision, without embodying the aspired culture is mistaken.  Such a leader may have a shell of a culture, but without the leader infusing the desired traits and qualities into her/his own life, it will never become part of the DNA of the leader’s organization.

The bottom line is that like an artist regardless of medium (paint, performance, music), the primary instrument any leader has to define and instill a culture is the person of the leader him/herself. There is no way to avoid that reality, and leaders who try to avoid it never achieve the culture building success to which they aspire.   Given that fact, here are three critical aspects a leader must continually cultivate:

  1. Clarity of intention.  Leaders are pulled in many directions, and sometimes values clash in desired outcomes or culture.  The leader’s first task in building and sustaining culture is to be very clear about the qualities one is trying to build and sustain, and to examine every initiative, action, etc., in light of those qualities.  When qualities or dimensions of culture seem to conflict, the leader must determine which dimensions are bedrock, and build actions that reflect, in relative importance, the dimensions of culture that matter most.
  2. Personal character that is congruent with the desired culture. Put simply, leaders “get back” what they “are.”  If you want a culture of trust, reflect trust in your team.  If you want a culture of engagement—engage!  And so on.  The key for this aspect is to be unsparing (although kind) of yourself in continually examining how you can better reflect the culture you are trying to build and sustain. Creating 360 mechanisms to discover if what you are intending to communicate is what is being received is critical.
  3. Consistency of application over time.  If a culture is to be changed, built, and sustained, above all else, the leader must be committed to the aspects of culture consistently—actually, constantly—over time.  It is perhaps here that most culture change efforts fail.  People get busy, other priorities intervene (culture can seem nebulous in the midst of a crunch of quantifiable measures and deadlines), and culture grows like a garden untended.  No matter how well manicured it may have been at one time, without attention, weeds and pests arise. Leaders must commit to culture building and sustaining as a focused process that is “someone’s job to worry about at night.”  And yes, that job ultimately belongs to the leader, as the primary culture builder and culture bearer. 

If you want to change, build, or sustain a culture in an organization, not only must you start with the why—you must start with yourself.  Find honest mentors/advisors, and begin the quest.  Everyone in the organization will benefit—and you as a leader will the most.

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Leadership

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

January 1, 2014 · 2:38 pm

Defining Direction and Mission—New Year Reflections

imagesHow do you want to be different at the end of 2014 than you are now?  How do you want to make the world different?  In defining the goals you will pursue, are they more focused on success, or significance?  Do you recognize the difference in those two things?

As I’ve reflected on my mission for the year, it has boiled down to a simple statement.  Simple to say, that is, but not so simple to do, because there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of little decisions, actions, words, and aspirations underneath them.  But in that, the statement challenges me, to connect the grand with the small, the moment with the long-term, and to reach for something larger than merely the personal.  As I think about 2014, and how I will look back at the end, here is what I want to accomplish:

My mission is to align talent and resources to achieve outcomes with purpose.

Obviously, this mission will require a focus on making my knowledge deeper and my skills better.  But it will also require focused attention to others, and how I can help them maximize their talent and resources to achieve outcomes that have purpose to them.  By building relationships with intention, being open and curious in learning, I believe that mission can build toward a life of significance.

Sure, I want to be in a little better shape, eat healthier, etc. etc., and make all of the commitments that we do at New Years in resolutions.  But somehow, even those little things take on a different significance when framed in that larger mission.  And significance, for those in the association and non-profit world, certainly should be a major focus of our work and lives.

So, Happy New Year!  May it bring you deeper meaning, clearer purpose, and satisfaction and contentment with a life well lived in the next year.

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Identity and Branding, Leadership

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

October 30, 2013 · 1:43 pm

Expanding Your Leadership Presence: Managing Meaning

imagesIt is not uncommon when coaching newly-minted or aspiring CEOs in associations to hear them express the desire to expand their leadership presence.  While being promoted from within vs. coming onboard from outside an organization pose different challenges, establishing and expanding leadership presence early is critical.

One trap newly hatched CEOs can easily fall into is believing that they were hired because of what they were doing well previously.  They assume they need to do more of that same thing, perhaps better and with more diligence to have success.  Unfortunately, in many cases this is not true.  While the skill set and persona that created the opportunity to lead is vital, the reality is that moving to a new level of responsibility—at the enterprise level—requires different skills and perspective than those that brought success previously.

One CEO I worked with was having a difficult time making the transition, and couldn’t really grasp the concept of stepping beyond his previously successful management focus and perspective.  Outside work, he was a car buff, and after some unfruitful discussion, I drew the following analogy that made sense for him and helped him shift.  It went like this:

Previously you were successful because you knew how to do things.  Now, your role is to define and manage why you do things.  Look at cars as an example:

There are some who have expertise and complete competence in transmissions.  They can take them apart and rebuild them in their sleep.

As they gain more experience and perspective, they may become experts in the drive train, looking not only at the transmission, but the system and interaction between transmission and motor/propulsion system.  The learn torque, power, etc., and how to maximize what is needed.  Others may focus on safety features, electrical systems, etc. as well.

Moving beyond the various systems is the designer, who has to make sure the systems all work together and that the sum is maximized to achieve the primary intent of the designer. 

Beyond the designer is the company/enterprise level.  What kind of vehicle are we building?  Is it intended for speed, durability, safety, style, transport of passengers/cargo, economy, luxury, etc?  Are we building for the racetrack or the Australian outback?  What is the market for this type of vehicle?  How does it fit into the company image, brand, etc.?  How does it fit into the market as it exists or is envisioned?  What will building this vehicle, at this time, do to position the company/enterprise as a whole, and where does it imply we are headed?  Is that where we want to go? 

This analogy gave this new CEO a way to understand the shift he needed to make.  In a real way, he needed to “step up” in his focus and vision.  It didn’t matter how good he had previously been in his more specific role, the goal now was much more to know WHY the organization was doing what it was doing (overall), rather than the how of an individual system or component.  Then, his job was to ALIGN the different components toward that WHY and definition of success, and to manage the culture and processes so that they were in sync with that WHY. Too much attention on one system or component of the organization, and he would fail—no matter how good that one system worked.  While a car must have a working transmission to move, it is much more than just the transmission.

When a CEO can help create and manage meaning, s/he has taken a very critical and primary step toward expanding leadership presence and long-term success.  How much energy and time do you devote to making sure the why of everything you do is aligned, and that it is commonly understood?  What mechanisms and processes do you use to ensure that you are managing meaning throughout your organization?

Here are two resources, both published this year, that may assist new CEOs in their development:

The Association CEO Handbook is filled with assessment questions, a particular beginning place for this kind of analysis is found on pp. 59-64.  (Disclosure:  I wrote the foreword for this book but have no financial interest.)

The First 90 Days (updated and expanded):  Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter, Harvard University Press.

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Leadership

Tagged as , , , , , ,

October 23, 2013 · 4:49 pm

Expanding Your Leadership Presence: Positioning

images

Changing levels of leadership requires new skills, and a new way of thinking about leadership. In particular, in speaking with new executive directors (either first time execs or those who have recently changed position), or those who aspire to become CEOs, it is not uncommon to find them struggling with how to assume a new role of leadership.  Should they position themselves to be more peer-like, a “one of the crowd” type of leader, or position themselves at the top of the hierarchy with clear delineations of role whose authority and position is unequivocal?

Both of these positions have fundamental flaws.  No matter how hard one tries, by definition a CEO has no peers in the enterprise he or she leads.  And merely staking a position of “authority” does not create respect, buy in, or “followship” that will build a successful cultural enterprise over the long term.

However, there is a different kind of positioning that can be quite effective in expanding leadership presence.  In 2011, Cuddy, Glick, and Beninger published an article in Research in Organizational Behavior that looked at the traits of competence and warmth, and how they impacted organizations.  Recently Cuddy, Kohut and Neffinger followed up with a Harvard Business Review blog that presented research and recommendations in an actionable way.  It’s worth registering with the site if you haven’t to read the entire article.  Cuddy has also given a TedTalk on some of her research findings.

What is one key to expanding your leadership through positioning?  Giving others a sense of your trustworthiness—a combination of warmth and competence/strength.  And what is the key to conveying trustworthiness?  It may be in how you position yourself physically.   The blog and the TedTalk show how to do that in a way you can begin today.

Granted, overreliance on body positioning or movement will not create a sense of warmth, trustworthiness, strength, or competence.  Rather, it will make you seen incongruent.  However, it has been scientifically demonstrated as one component of expanding leadership presence.  Practice positioning yourself differently.  See what happens.

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Leadership, Staff Management

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 , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 2, 2013 · 3:43 pm

Improving Board Performance Through New Board Member Orientation

imagesWhen I first became an Executive Director, for the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy there was no formal process for orienting new members who had been elected to the Board of Directors.  That was in 1993.  Last year, in a presentation on financial orientation for new Board members sponsored by ASAE, it was stated that only 41% of associations conduct Board orientations.  In the long period between 1993 and 2012, there have been financial and other “scandals” involving prominent nonprofits, significant changes in law that impacts non-profits, and a sea change in technology that has created more demand for transparency in organizational governance.  Aside from the legal and fiduciary exposure, social media use by organizations brings governance into much clearer focus for members, stakeholders, and the public.  More than ever, Board members need to begin their terms of service with knowledge of the strategic vision and direction of the organization, as well as more knowledge of how the parts fit together.

Call it overkill, or caution, or simply the inherent interest of systems-oriented therapists in processes, but at AAMFT we created an orientation for all newly elected Board members that, in reality, begins at the nomination phase.   After individuals are elected, there is a mandatory one and a half-two day orientation period that is hosted in the Association’s headquarters.  The orientation is hosted by the President, President-Elect, and Executive Director of the Association. Of particular focus during that time:

  1. Having newly elected Board members speak to their personal aspirations for Board service, and how they would define success.  Common questions: “If you are successful in your Board service, what will the Association look like at the end of your term? What issues will have been addressed that you see as important in the next three years? What would you like to make sure is maintained, and what would you like to see changed, improved, or eliminated?
    Even though individuals address this in platform statements, etc., their views evolve and become more relevant to them after election.  This information also gives the leadership significant clues about how Board culture might evolve, and how Board dialogue might be carried forward.
  2. Reviewing the principles outlined in the American Bar Association’s book, Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations.
  3. Reviewing the specific policies of the Association that are based on the Guidebook.  (AAMFT has a Governance Manual that includes, among other things, the Strategic Plan, the Board Calendar, the Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest Policies, Board Member Role and Responsibility, Relationship with Staff, and more.)
  4. Reviewing the Finances and Corporate Structure.  There is a presentation (mentioned above) that offers great information on financial orientation on ASAE’s website if you are a member.
  5. Discussion of current landscape of the association.  This changes annually, but allows for some in-depth exploration (circling back to the beginning) about issues the Board is currently deliberating, the political climate internally and externally, etc.  It is in this section that there is discussion of the key questions outlined in the book, The Will to Govern Well.  These questions look at what is known about the current needs, wants, and preferences of members and stakeholders, the organization’s strategic capacity and position, the external trends that will impact the organization and the ethical implications of some of the issues before the organization.

Of all the tools, programs, training, etc., that can be provided to organizational leaders, this program of orientation has been vital in building collaboration, knowledge-based decision making by the Board, and better communications with members and the public about the governance and operations of the organization.   If your organization is one of the 59 percent that is not doing an orientation for incoming Board members, what are you waiting for?  Being a Board member is one thing.  Being a Good Board member is more challenging than ever, and even the most committed, well-meaning individuals who serve can use orientation, training, and “on-boarding” processes to help them toward success and meaningful contribution.

Leave a comment

Filed under Board Development, Executive Directors, Leadership

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

May 31, 2013 · 1:36 pm

What is Your Natural Leadership “Position?”

There-go-the-people-I-must-follow-them-for-I-am-their-leader-Alexandre-Ledru-Rollin-leadership-picture-quoteThere is no shortage of books, articles, and training materials on leadership.  One can learn about collaborative leadership, facilitative leadership, or in one article, 19 different styles of leadership.  While much of this can be helpful, all of it combined together can be confusing, and at times contradictory.  Is leadership innate, or learned?  Can one simply choose what kind of leader to be in any given circumstance, or do personal traits define what type of leader you will most likely be?

The answer to those questions may simply be “yes.”  In addition to learning about leadership styles, I’ve found it helpful to consider “positions” in leadership.  Considering “where you need to be” to lead effectively can help define your leadership tasks and enhance your odds of being successful in leadership.

Leading From the Front

This is the stereotypical leader—one who is charging ahead, giving direction, showing the way.  Certainly, it helps to be a visionary or to have charisma to lead from the front.  Those who can carry a crowd with a speech are sometimes referred to as “natural” leaders.  However, there are other times when leading from the front is seen as 1) distant, 2) autocratic, 3) out of touch, or 4) unrealistic.

When is leading from the front most effective?  When people are lacking a vision of success, unclear about direction or goals, or so fearful of failure that they will not risk action.

What should you do?  Focus yourself—and others to become clear on vision, direction, meaning, goal attainment, and the meaning of reaching for those goals.

Think for a moment—who are those you know, or know of, who have demonstrated clear and powerful “leadership from the front?”

Leading from the Middle

This position of leadership perhaps falls into facilitative leadership models.  However, the individual who leads from the middle isn’t focused narrowly.  Leading from the middle is more about ensuring that the resources are available (both human and financial) and more importantly that they are aligned toward the common vision of success.

When is leading from the middle not only effective but necessary?  When the organization and/or staff have a definition of success, and goals that have been established, but have not been effectively organized, aligned, or resourced to be most effective.  Another visionary speech won’t fix this issue.  The situation requires someone to lead by system building, someone who will create the processes and mechanisms for effectiveness, efficiency, and outcome.

Leading from Behind

Leading from Behind is the hidden work of leadership.  It is focused more on individuals, or small groups.  You might call it coaching, mentoring, advising, or encouraging risk by people you recognize have the skills, but perhaps not the confidence.

When to lead from behind?  When the vision is clear, and the basic systems and resources are in place, your role as a leader is in people development.  Individuals (and teams) need to know you have confidence in them to do a good job, and to succeed.  This isn’t simply cheerleading, it is creating the environment where staff—or volunteers feel comfortable stepping out, stretching, and achieving.  Think what you would have wanted from a supervisor at a challenging point in your career, and see if you can give it to those you work with, and who work for you.  If in doubt, ask them…

A quote is attributed to Dwight Eisenhower:  “Leadership is getting people to do what you want them to do and having them think it was their idea all the time.”

Recognizing not only your natural comfort position in leadership, but also what the context demands, will help you stretch your leadership skills and succeed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Leadership

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

May 28, 2013 · 1:02 pm

Hiring Well: Three “C”s to Consider

blocksIt is no secret: personnel issues are a point of pain for association and nonprofit executives.  To date, Assessing Personnel Problems: Three Questions to Ask has generated many further questions and follow up.  One major key in avoiding, or minimizing personnel issues, is hiring well.

There is no shortage of information to be found about the hiring process.  You can read about how to grade applicants, which body part to use when interviewing, and a method for determining who to hire.  It is true that many fall into less than optimal practices at the hiring point that lead to challenges later.

For mission and value based organizations, I have found three categories on which to evaluate a potential hire that maximize the potential for success.  While different words might be used, these are the dimensions on which I evaluate potential hires:

Culture

What kind of culture do you wish to create or enhance in your workplace?  Can you articulate it in clear and measurable terms?  Different workplaces can have profoundly different aspirations about culture.  Think of the difference between an NFL team and an arts organization.

I’ve learned over the years that this component is easy to overlook in the hiring process, or at least to minimize.  Sometimes it gets confused with chemistry—which is whether you like someone or not.  This is a more direct evaluation of how someone will contribute intentionally to the work atmosphere and values, not whether you could be friends with someone.  After several mistakes in this area, I’ve come to believe that if there are red flags here, it is better to leave a position vacant than to bring someone into the work environment who reflects an outlook, values, and comfort with a culture different than the one you want reflected in your workplace.

Competence

Obviously you want the person with the best skills and knowledge to perform the work defined in the position description.  That should be assessed clearly and well.  But there is another dimension here:  what is the person’s native ability to connect their work to the larger whole?  In a more connected world, competence no longer is limited to the specific tasks and outputs of a single job description.  To maximize impact, competence now includes the ability to multiply value by connecting that work to the larger whole.

Character

What is the core of this individual?  What questions do I need to ask relative to this work environment that will help me assess the character of this person?  And yes, there are many questions that are legal to ask in the hiring process that will get at this component of the hiring evaluation.  While companies rely more on background checks to assess basic information, and references become more skittish to provide an in depth statement about individuals for fear of possible litigation, this dimension is worth exploring with several questions directly aimed at assessing character.

Culture, Competence, Character.  If you assess in these dimensions, and find a fit that works for your organization, the instances of future personnel problems will be diminished.  Give thought to what you want, and don’t hire something significantly outside those parameters.

1 Comment

Filed under Executive Directors, Staff Management

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

May 23, 2013 · 3:23 pm

The Problem is Never “Not Enough Good Ideas.” The Problem is Too Many

th

Glenn Tecker and colleages have written in The Will to Govern Well about four primary questions (and one “wrap around”) that help Boards govern with knowledge.  Those questions help provide a framework for data gathering and analysis to be used in planning.  In general, they are:

  • What do we know about the needs, wants, and preferences of our members and/or stakeholders that is relevant to this issue?
  • What do we know about the evolving external context that is relevant to this issue, and how that might impact planning?
  • What do we know about the strategic capacity (and position) of our organization that is relevant to this issue?
  • What are the ethical implications of our choices?
  • Then there is a fifth question:  What do we wish we knew, but don’t?

These questions are designed to move an organization from “information and data” to “knowledge.”  They are quite effective in moving Boards from operations to strategy as well.  The issue then becomes, what to do with what you know in terms of action?  And further, what do we do when there are 20 good ideas on the table, but we can really do only two or three of them?

One mechanism that can help is the use of strategic screens:  a set of questions through which to view your knowledge, the challenge/opportunity before you, and the values your organization holds. The Fieldstone Alliance has information about this concept.

A great example of the use of strategic screens is found in the work of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).   After clearly articulating values, business model, and strategic priorities, on pages 9-10 of their strategic planning document (see it under the About/Governance section), they discuss their two overarching screens:  the values screen, and the strategic management screen,and then expand them subsequently.  In the use of these screens, NAMI writes:

“NAMI’s screens are built upon NAMI’s mission and values.  They are grounded in NAMI Standards of Excellence, which describe the mutually agreed upon standards of operation for NAMI, NAMI chartered State Organizations, and NAMI Affiliates.  The screen assists us in making values informed strategic choices.  They help NAMI determine why we would undertake any given idea and how we would shape and refine the idea in order to hold or enhance NAMI’s competitive advantages and ensure strong management.

Simply put:  if we test an idea against this screen and cannot provide clear and satisfactory answers to the questions posed in the screen, then we ought not pursue that idea.  While the idea or program may have many merits and be appealing, if it does not support NAMI’s mission or values and enhance our competitive advantage, then, as leaders dedicated to advancing NAMI’s strategic well-being, we must refrain from those actions.”

As executives, our job is to ask the strategic questions, gather the best data/information available, churn that into knowledge, and act to the betterment of our organizations/issues.  NAMI provides a great example of how one organization has modeled its process. Take a look!

1 Comment

Filed under Board Development, Executive Directors, Strategic Planning

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