Tag Archives: 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 , , , , , ,

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 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 13, 2013 · 5:56 pm

Assessing Personnel “Problems:” Three Questions to Ask

imagesNothing drains more energy or time from an association/nonprofit executive than when there are indications of a problem with staff.  It may be phone calls about poor customer service from members or leaders, missed deadlines or failure to respond appropriately, or any other number of signs that something is amiss.

Many times I hear execs say that they waited too long to intervene.  Other times I hear from staff that there is a sudden confrontation with no ability to explore the problem in a collaborative manner.   How can executives proceed in a fashion that will address the problem directly yet leave the most opportunity and ground for growth and ultimate success in dealing with a problematic staff issue?

I’ve found a three step process allows for an exploration, understanding, and creating a sound strategy for moving forward in these circumstances.   At times, there may not be a personnel issue at all.  Here are the questions to ask—and the order in which to move through the assessment:

Is there a systemic/process breakdown that is creating or exacerbating the problem?

There are times when what appears to be a problematic staff performance issue isn’t that at all.  There is, rather a systemic problem that is leading to breakdowns in staff capability to perform.  If the systemic problems are addressed, the performance problem may disappear.  Systemic problems may be problems of coordination/communication between people, processes, or departments, hardware or software malfunction, or any other number of structure/process/program issues.  If someone hasn’t been responsive, it is not productive to confront them only to discover that because of some communication breakdown they never received instructions, directions, etc.  Unfortunately, in human designed systems, whether management systems or computer, etc., there are sometimes built in glitches that create problems.  Before presuming you have a staff performance issue, make sure that there are not impediments that have been “cooked in” to the system.  That’s your first job as a manager in assessing performance and creating a context for excellence.

Is there a resource problem that is preventing the performance that is expected?

If you are sure that the management and communications systems are working properly and are coordinated well, the next level of question is whether or not there is a resource issue that is keeping the staff person from performing appropriately.  Do they have the equipment they need to perform well?  Do they have the training to function with excellence?  Do they have the information/direction needed to complete the task in line with expectations?  Do they have the time to do the work?  Is there so much work assigned that it is unreasonable to expect a well trained, appropriately oriented and equipped staff person to perform the work well.  Until these two basic questions can be answered in the affirmative, there is no way to tell whether you have a true staff performance problem, or a system/resource problem.

After answering the first two questions, then there is the third: Is this problem chronic or random?

Humans are human.  Even superstars make mistakes, and sometimes they make fairly big ones.  But these mistakes are outliers, and not the norm for a good staffer who is trained, equipped, and placed in a working system.

On the other hand, there are people who are either not suited for certain work, not compatible with an organizational culture, or not interested in performing to the standards of the organization (although I believe this is rare if the first two conditions are addressed appropriately).  In such instances, after having completed the assessments in the questions above, it is time for legitimate intervention.

The Bottom Line

Most people want to do well in their work.  For associations and nonprofits, it is much better to tap into that desire to do well, and to ensure that staff are embedded in a functional management system, with appropriate resources, direction, etc., and a clear sense of expectation.  You’ll save yourself a lot of grief, grow your staff toward excellence, and potentially even avoid employment related litigation (a large and growing concern in our sector) if you can demonstrate that you’ve done everything you need to do in terms of providing systems, training, and opportunity for staff to succeed.

2 Comments

Filed under Executive Directors, Staff Management

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 , , , , , , , , ,