Tag Archives: Leadership

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

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

When Teammates Collide

Good read on personality challenges in teams.

Dan Rockwell's avatarLeadership Freak

collision

Forward-focused teammates clash with foot-draggers.  But, foot-draggers aren’t the problem.

My approach to an opportunity is grab it and go. Planning isn’t high on my list. I know it’s important but can’t we plan as we go. “Just do something” is my motto. Build the airplane in the air.

“Just do something people” drive planners crazy. But “just do something” isn’t the problem.

Example:

A planner on my team sent me an e-mail that included, “I don’t want to frustrate you.” I was pushing for a next step. He was explaining why we can’t move forward, at this time.

Every team experiences collisions between team members pushing for the next thing and those reluctant to move forward.

*Heidi Grant Halvorson and E. Tory Higgins explain motivational collisions in their new book, “Focus.” They explain how some tend to promote and others prevent.

Promoters play to win.
Preventers play not…

View original post 198 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Executive Directors, General