There are several books that influence both the nonprofit and forprofit sectors, providing valuable guidance to each and The Innovators Dilemma is one, noted for the impact it had on Steve Jobs in this article from Harvard Business Review.
An excerpt.
“In the lead up to today's release of the Steve Jobs biography, there's been an increasing stream of news surrounding its subject. As a business researcher, I was particularly interested in this recent article that referenced from his biography a list of Jobs's favorite books. There's one business book on this list, and it "deeply influenced" Jobs. That book is The Innovator's Dilemma by HBS Professor Clay Christensen.
“But what's most interesting to me isn't that The Innovator's Dilemma was on that list. It's that Jobs solved the conundrum.
“When describing his period of exile from Apple — when John Sculley took over — Steve Jobs described one fundamental root cause of Apple's problems. That was to let profitability outweigh passion: "My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. The products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."
“Anyone familiar with Professor Christensen's work will quickly recognize the same causal mechanism at the heart of the Innovator's Dilemma: the pursuit of profit. The best professional managers — doing all the right things and following all the best advice — lead their companies all the way to the top of their markets in that pursuit... only to fall straight off the edge of a cliff after getting there.
“Which is exactly what had happened to Apple. A string of professional managers had led the company straight off the edge of that cliff. The fall had almost killed the company. It had 90 days working capital on hand when he took over — in other words, Apple was only three months away from bankruptcy.
“When he returned, Jobs completely upended the company. There were thousands of layoffs. Scores of products were killed stone dead. He knew the company had to make money to stay alive, but he transitioned the focus of Apple away from profits. Profit was viewed as necessary, but not sufficient, to justify everything Apple did. That attitude resulted in a company that looks entirely different to almost any other modern Fortune 500 company. One striking example: there's only one person Apple with responsibility for a profit and loss. The CFO. It's almost the opposite of what is taught in business school. An executive who worked at both Apple and Microsoft described the differences this way: "Microsoft tries to find pockets of unrealized revenue and then figures out what to make. Apple is just the opposite: It thinks of great products, then sells them. Prototypes and demos always come before spreadsheets."
“Similarly, Apple talks a lot about its great people. But make no mistake — they are there only in service of the mission. A headhunter describes it thus: "It is a happy place in that it has true believers. People join and stay because they believe in the mission of the company." It didn't matter how great you were, if you couldn't deliver to that mission — you were out.”
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Peter Senge’s Work
I first encountered his works through his magisterial book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, and recently purchased the 2006 revised edition, along with his 2008 book, The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals And Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World, and my admiration for his work continues to grow.
If you are a nonprofit leader who has been exploring the discipline of organizational development—and if you aren’t, you should be—then he is one thinker whose work you should become familiar with; and for a wonderful conversation between two truly great organizational thinkers, I suggest getting a copy of Leading in a Time of Change: A Conversation with Peter F. Drucker & Peter M. Senge.
From Senge’s 2008 book, an excerpt:
“three guiding ideas [that] stand out as essential for creating a more sustainable future.”
1. There is no viable path forward that does not take into account the needs of future generations. The term sustainability is widely used to express the need to live in the present in ways that do not jeopardize the future….
2. Institutions matter. Today’s world is shaped not by individuals alone, but by the networks of businesses and governmental and nongovernmental institutions that influence the products we make, the food we eat, the energy we use, and our responses to problems that arise from those systems…
3. All real change is grounded in new ways of thinking and perceiving. As Einstein said: “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”… (pp. 9-10)
If you are a nonprofit leader who has been exploring the discipline of organizational development—and if you aren’t, you should be—then he is one thinker whose work you should become familiar with; and for a wonderful conversation between two truly great organizational thinkers, I suggest getting a copy of Leading in a Time of Change: A Conversation with Peter F. Drucker & Peter M. Senge.
From Senge’s 2008 book, an excerpt:
“three guiding ideas [that] stand out as essential for creating a more sustainable future.”
1. There is no viable path forward that does not take into account the needs of future generations. The term sustainability is widely used to express the need to live in the present in ways that do not jeopardize the future….
2. Institutions matter. Today’s world is shaped not by individuals alone, but by the networks of businesses and governmental and nongovernmental institutions that influence the products we make, the food we eat, the energy we use, and our responses to problems that arise from those systems…
3. All real change is grounded in new ways of thinking and perceiving. As Einstein said: “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”… (pp. 9-10)
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Donor Service
This article from Nonprofit About.com begins with the too often practice of not thanking donors, something that should be done immediately regardless of how the donation came.
From my perspective, if an organization does not thank donors immediately and well, they virtually negate their foundational mission, within which their organizational mission is embedded, of community service.
An excerpt from the article.
“A friend donated a considerable amount of money through payroll deduction to her local public radio station. For that amount, she was supposed to receive a thermos with the station's logo on it.
“When she didn't receive the gift nor any kind of thank you from the station, she called and asked about it. The woman on the phone said, "Oh, well we don't send thank you's for donations through payroll deduction." She didn't know anything about the gift.
“That was it...no apology...no "Let me put you through to someone who can help." Apparently, they didn't send the advertised gift for payroll deduction donations either because it never came. Why payroll deduction would have made any difference at all is perplexing. My friend was so infuriated that she never gave another cent and has plenty to say about the radio station whenever possible.
“I suspect that the woman my friend spoke to did not know what she was talking about, and that if the development department had known about the conversation they would be horrified.
“Overall there was a disconnect on several levels. What is their policy on thank you's? Is there a glitch in the fulfillment process that resulted in the gift not being sent? Why hadn't the woman on the phone been properly trained so that she knew the policies and what to do when her help was not enough? Why did she not appreciate the importance of a donor call such as that one?”
From my perspective, if an organization does not thank donors immediately and well, they virtually negate their foundational mission, within which their organizational mission is embedded, of community service.
An excerpt from the article.
“A friend donated a considerable amount of money through payroll deduction to her local public radio station. For that amount, she was supposed to receive a thermos with the station's logo on it.
“When she didn't receive the gift nor any kind of thank you from the station, she called and asked about it. The woman on the phone said, "Oh, well we don't send thank you's for donations through payroll deduction." She didn't know anything about the gift.
“That was it...no apology...no "Let me put you through to someone who can help." Apparently, they didn't send the advertised gift for payroll deduction donations either because it never came. Why payroll deduction would have made any difference at all is perplexing. My friend was so infuriated that she never gave another cent and has plenty to say about the radio station whenever possible.
“I suspect that the woman my friend spoke to did not know what she was talking about, and that if the development department had known about the conversation they would be horrified.
“Overall there was a disconnect on several levels. What is their policy on thank you's? Is there a glitch in the fulfillment process that resulted in the gift not being sent? Why hadn't the woman on the phone been properly trained so that she knew the policies and what to do when her help was not enough? Why did she not appreciate the importance of a donor call such as that one?”
Friday, October 7, 2011
Meeting With Peers
This is a good article from Stanford Social Innovation Review, touching on an important resource and fortunately, it is one available in Sacramento at the Nonprofit Resource Center ED Network, and here is their October meeting agenda.
An excerpt from the article
“We recently conducted a focus group with nonprofit CEOs in New York City. Given all the recent research that points to the value of peer-to-peer support for nonprofit leaders, we wanted to know why so little of this is done online. One CEO immediately responded, “We don’t have time.”
“The facilitator of the focus group was taken aback. “How do you have time to come to this two-hour focus group but don’t have the time to go online?”
“The leaders in the room saw the return on investment for a well-organized meeting with their peers to be much greater than anything they could do in the digital commons. They were more confident that they would get actionable insight into management techniques. But perhaps more importantly, the meeting provided an emotional and psychological benefit that is rarely met: a space for candid conversation about successes and failures in a safe, supportive environment. (highlighting added)
“Face-to-face conversations with other leaders—commercial and nonprofit—remind us that failure is, in fact, the norm and does not preclude success.
“If [CEOs’ successes] were graded on a curve, the mean on the test would be 22 out of a 100,” Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz recently wrote on TechCrunch. “This kind of mean can be psychologically challenging…because nobody tells you that the mean is 22.”
“If the buck stops at the CEO, every failure in our organization ends up piled on my desk—whether it’s a typo on the website, a bad hire, or a missed market opportunity. After just a week, the failures stack up so high that it is hard to see past the mountain of complaints.”
An excerpt from the article
“We recently conducted a focus group with nonprofit CEOs in New York City. Given all the recent research that points to the value of peer-to-peer support for nonprofit leaders, we wanted to know why so little of this is done online. One CEO immediately responded, “We don’t have time.”
“The facilitator of the focus group was taken aback. “How do you have time to come to this two-hour focus group but don’t have the time to go online?”
“The leaders in the room saw the return on investment for a well-organized meeting with their peers to be much greater than anything they could do in the digital commons. They were more confident that they would get actionable insight into management techniques. But perhaps more importantly, the meeting provided an emotional and psychological benefit that is rarely met: a space for candid conversation about successes and failures in a safe, supportive environment. (highlighting added)
“Face-to-face conversations with other leaders—commercial and nonprofit—remind us that failure is, in fact, the norm and does not preclude success.
“If [CEOs’ successes] were graded on a curve, the mean on the test would be 22 out of a 100,” Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz recently wrote on TechCrunch. “This kind of mean can be psychologically challenging…because nobody tells you that the mean is 22.”
“If the buck stops at the CEO, every failure in our organization ends up piled on my desk—whether it’s a typo on the website, a bad hire, or a missed market opportunity. After just a week, the failures stack up so high that it is hard to see past the mountain of complaints.”
Friday, September 23, 2011
Fundraising Strategies
The bottom-line in any effective fundraising strategy is communication.
Communicating with your donor community, communicating with the larger community, communicating what it is about your mission that is important and how you are fulfilling it, and this article from Communications Magazine is excellent.
An excerpt.
“You’ve done your homework. You know your pitch. You believe in your mission, and understand the reasons donors give your organization. Even so, you may feel that your fundraising has plateaued… that you’re stuck in a rut or missing out on key giving opportunities. Many times, you may simply feel a sense of malaise – that no matter how much you try, you aren’t leveling up.
“Today, we offer you nine great ideas for powering back on, and taking your fundraising game to a whole new level:
“1. Turn off the Computer and Pick up the Phone
The next time you are getting ready to send out an e-mail, I want you to stop – turn off the computer – and pick up the phone. Instead of e-mailing that donor, prospect, board member or community leader, pick up the phone and call. It’s far more personal and has lasting positive effects on the relationship.
“2. Join a New Networking Organization
Running out of new people to talk with about your organization? Join a new networking group. It could be a local chamber of commerce, the Kiwanis club, your college alumni association, a business group… whatever it is, join and start going to meetings to connect with more people.
“3. Jump on Social Networks with Renewed Vigor
You may have started that Twitter account, LinkedIn Group or Facebook company page with the best of intentions, but as time went on, your interest may have waned, you got discouraged, or simply stopped participating. Now is the time to reengage!
“4. Listen to Your Staff and Volunteers
When was the last time you asked for – and listened to – new fundraising ideas from your staff and volunteers? Get them into the room and ask them for ideas: What should we try? Who should we talk to? What can I do to help you?
“5. Take Your 5 Smallest Donors Out to Lunch
Everyone takes their biggest donors out to networking lunches – and you should too – but have you thought about taking your 5 smallest donors out to lunch? You know, those old ladies who give $50 a year to your annual appeal or those young professionals right out of college who give $25 because they saw an ad for your organization online? Call ‘em up, take ‘em out to lunch, and see what motivates them to give. Maybe they could give more? Maybe they have friends who would want to give? Maybe they will just be shocked that you called… It was only $25 after all!”
Communicating with your donor community, communicating with the larger community, communicating what it is about your mission that is important and how you are fulfilling it, and this article from Communications Magazine is excellent.
An excerpt.
“You’ve done your homework. You know your pitch. You believe in your mission, and understand the reasons donors give your organization. Even so, you may feel that your fundraising has plateaued… that you’re stuck in a rut or missing out on key giving opportunities. Many times, you may simply feel a sense of malaise – that no matter how much you try, you aren’t leveling up.
“Today, we offer you nine great ideas for powering back on, and taking your fundraising game to a whole new level:
“1. Turn off the Computer and Pick up the Phone
The next time you are getting ready to send out an e-mail, I want you to stop – turn off the computer – and pick up the phone. Instead of e-mailing that donor, prospect, board member or community leader, pick up the phone and call. It’s far more personal and has lasting positive effects on the relationship.
“2. Join a New Networking Organization
Running out of new people to talk with about your organization? Join a new networking group. It could be a local chamber of commerce, the Kiwanis club, your college alumni association, a business group… whatever it is, join and start going to meetings to connect with more people.
“3. Jump on Social Networks with Renewed Vigor
You may have started that Twitter account, LinkedIn Group or Facebook company page with the best of intentions, but as time went on, your interest may have waned, you got discouraged, or simply stopped participating. Now is the time to reengage!
“4. Listen to Your Staff and Volunteers
When was the last time you asked for – and listened to – new fundraising ideas from your staff and volunteers? Get them into the room and ask them for ideas: What should we try? Who should we talk to? What can I do to help you?
“5. Take Your 5 Smallest Donors Out to Lunch
Everyone takes their biggest donors out to networking lunches – and you should too – but have you thought about taking your 5 smallest donors out to lunch? You know, those old ladies who give $50 a year to your annual appeal or those young professionals right out of college who give $25 because they saw an ad for your organization online? Call ‘em up, take ‘em out to lunch, and see what motivates them to give. Maybe they could give more? Maybe they have friends who would want to give? Maybe they will just be shocked that you called… It was only $25 after all!”
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Board Members & Courage
This article from Venture Philanthropy Partners is excellent, reminding board members that their job is to ask questions, get answers, and bring the level of passion, skill, and talent for which they were originally recruited as board members, to the proceedings of the board and fulfillment of the mission of the organization.
An excerpt.
“They check their brains at the door” is a complaint often heard about business leaders who serve on nonprofit boards. This complaint has merit. I regularly observe business leaders who are reluctant to apply the same rigor, objective questioning, performance expectations, and data-informed decision-making that serve them well in their day jobs.
“I’ve been guilty of this myself. I remember, with great chagrin and embarrassment, how much difficulty I had finding my sea legs when I first joined a nonprofit board. I was appalled by the lack of information available to us, and the little information we did have told me that the organization and its charismatic leader were struggling mightily. Instead of speaking up and constructively demanding the level of stewardship and governance that I took for granted in my corporate board roles, I just got frustrated and said little.
“I don’t think I checked my brains at the door. But I sure as hell checked my courage.
“As I reflect on why I didn’t speak up, I suppose I just didn’t know what my role “allowed” me to say or ask. I was the new guy from the business world without any real experience with the type of services the organization provided. I joined this board thinking it would be a “nice thing to do” and certainly not intending to ruffle feathers.
“I know others from the business world have felt this same hesitation, as well as a related one: Friendships and social ties with the executive director and other board members can blur objectivity and a sense of accountability.
“The net is that too many nonprofit boards are downright afraid to stir conflict, rock the boat with hard questions, challenge executive directors, and hold the organization accountable for its performance. We simply don’t want to “hurt somebody’s feelings” or, God forbid, introduce any aspect of conflict—even when it might spur constructive debate. Unfortunately, when we elevate “harmony” over mission and purpose, our clients/beneficiaries often pay a big price in terms of the quality of services they receive.
“Timid, polite, “collegial” boards may eventually start asking the right questions, but often it’s too late. The questioning finally comes when they’re faced with a problem so severe that they have no choice but to tackle the real issues. By that time, they’re in crisis mode, which, ironically, almost always results in broken glass and busted relationships as well as well as less-than-desired programmatic results.”
An excerpt.
“They check their brains at the door” is a complaint often heard about business leaders who serve on nonprofit boards. This complaint has merit. I regularly observe business leaders who are reluctant to apply the same rigor, objective questioning, performance expectations, and data-informed decision-making that serve them well in their day jobs.
“I’ve been guilty of this myself. I remember, with great chagrin and embarrassment, how much difficulty I had finding my sea legs when I first joined a nonprofit board. I was appalled by the lack of information available to us, and the little information we did have told me that the organization and its charismatic leader were struggling mightily. Instead of speaking up and constructively demanding the level of stewardship and governance that I took for granted in my corporate board roles, I just got frustrated and said little.
“I don’t think I checked my brains at the door. But I sure as hell checked my courage.
“As I reflect on why I didn’t speak up, I suppose I just didn’t know what my role “allowed” me to say or ask. I was the new guy from the business world without any real experience with the type of services the organization provided. I joined this board thinking it would be a “nice thing to do” and certainly not intending to ruffle feathers.
“I know others from the business world have felt this same hesitation, as well as a related one: Friendships and social ties with the executive director and other board members can blur objectivity and a sense of accountability.
“The net is that too many nonprofit boards are downright afraid to stir conflict, rock the boat with hard questions, challenge executive directors, and hold the organization accountable for its performance. We simply don’t want to “hurt somebody’s feelings” or, God forbid, introduce any aspect of conflict—even when it might spur constructive debate. Unfortunately, when we elevate “harmony” over mission and purpose, our clients/beneficiaries often pay a big price in terms of the quality of services they receive.
“Timid, polite, “collegial” boards may eventually start asking the right questions, but often it’s too late. The questioning finally comes when they’re faced with a problem so severe that they have no choice but to tackle the real issues. By that time, they’re in crisis mode, which, ironically, almost always results in broken glass and busted relationships as well as well as less-than-desired programmatic results.”
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Innovation in the Social Sector
Though it is usually not known for it, this article from Harvard Business Review suggests ways it might become more so.
An excerpt.
“Innovation, in word and deed, has been a golden calf of the business world for decades. Companies like Apple and Google are prized and admired for their unending commitment to introducing new services, products, methods and strategies. Now the concept has taken on a second life in the social sector, where a tougher than tough economy has made "innovation" the theoretical one-size fits all answer for every challenge, with little discussion about the associated costs and challenges. Donors no longer supporting your work? Innovate! A harsh, unyielding, volatile political climate? Innovate! Shrinking staff? Innovate!
“I myself, charged aggressively into this recession with all of my 22-year old energy and generational swagger, armed with Seth Godin books, ready to innovate and "change the game", despite never having played it before. Working for the nation's oldest and largest civil and human rights coalition, I ran head first into the reality that innovation, however sexy and necessary, is much easier said than done. Since then, I've founded a new project and brand within the country's largest progressive think tank and am now working with ambitious social entrepreneurs to develop, experiment with, and incubate new ideas. In other words, I've seen how hard innovation can be in every possible social sector setting.
“Why is this? Well, for starters, failure is a critical part of innovation. In order to try something new, one must be willing to fail on the path to success. Unfortunately for many non-profits, failure is perceived as more than an uncomfortable and painful outcome, but a grave and dangerous one. There are two huge reasons why failure is seen as so negative in the social sector:
“1. There is too much at stake. Businesses risk money. Non profits risk political capital that can take years to rebuild, and in many cases, the very lives of the people they serve or advocate on behalf of. Failure in our world can mean less effective services to the homeless, less responsive assistance for victims of domestic violence, the squandering of funds for public education, and so and so forth. This is not a game. But the problem with this seriousness, no matter how accurate it may be, is that is often applied with such tenacity and to such great extent as to morph into a self-righteous excuse to settle for the status quo. Will people really die if you reformat the way you send out an email? Will genocide be any more intense if you try a creative online action for your organizations? Will the world really end if you try to engage students in their own advocacy vs. just parents? Probably not. What many don't understand is that while our issues may seem too important to risk failure in the short term, their importance has kept many in the sector from experimenting and innovating fast enough to succeed in the long term.”
An excerpt.
“Innovation, in word and deed, has been a golden calf of the business world for decades. Companies like Apple and Google are prized and admired for their unending commitment to introducing new services, products, methods and strategies. Now the concept has taken on a second life in the social sector, where a tougher than tough economy has made "innovation" the theoretical one-size fits all answer for every challenge, with little discussion about the associated costs and challenges. Donors no longer supporting your work? Innovate! A harsh, unyielding, volatile political climate? Innovate! Shrinking staff? Innovate!
“I myself, charged aggressively into this recession with all of my 22-year old energy and generational swagger, armed with Seth Godin books, ready to innovate and "change the game", despite never having played it before. Working for the nation's oldest and largest civil and human rights coalition, I ran head first into the reality that innovation, however sexy and necessary, is much easier said than done. Since then, I've founded a new project and brand within the country's largest progressive think tank and am now working with ambitious social entrepreneurs to develop, experiment with, and incubate new ideas. In other words, I've seen how hard innovation can be in every possible social sector setting.
“Why is this? Well, for starters, failure is a critical part of innovation. In order to try something new, one must be willing to fail on the path to success. Unfortunately for many non-profits, failure is perceived as more than an uncomfortable and painful outcome, but a grave and dangerous one. There are two huge reasons why failure is seen as so negative in the social sector:
“1. There is too much at stake. Businesses risk money. Non profits risk political capital that can take years to rebuild, and in many cases, the very lives of the people they serve or advocate on behalf of. Failure in our world can mean less effective services to the homeless, less responsive assistance for victims of domestic violence, the squandering of funds for public education, and so and so forth. This is not a game. But the problem with this seriousness, no matter how accurate it may be, is that is often applied with such tenacity and to such great extent as to morph into a self-righteous excuse to settle for the status quo. Will people really die if you reformat the way you send out an email? Will genocide be any more intense if you try a creative online action for your organizations? Will the world really end if you try to engage students in their own advocacy vs. just parents? Probably not. What many don't understand is that while our issues may seem too important to risk failure in the short term, their importance has kept many in the sector from experimenting and innovating fast enough to succeed in the long term.”
Monday, August 8, 2011
Leadership Coaching
I have been providing this service for years and the way I approach it is a pretty straightforward process of listening, advising, and inspiring.
This article from the Nonprofit Quarterly examines it.
An excerpt.
“Ruth McCambridge: If coaching is the answer, what’s the question?
“Bill Ryan: The question is, “If my organization wants to get to Point X, how am I, as a leader, in the way, and what do I need to do to get out of the way?” That’s a negative formulation of it. Another way to put it would be, “If my organization wants to get to Point X, what do I, as a leader, need to do to build on my strengths and manage my weaknesses to help it get there?”
“RM: It was interesting to see in the report how vague and all over the place the definitions of coaching are. Can you talk a little bit about what people mean when they talk about coaching?
“BR: There are lots of people attempting to nail down the definition. The practice of coaching is still relatively new, so everyone is trying to definitively type it, and, in particular, they’re very anxious to distinguish it from consulting or therapy. Some people, invested in the practice as a profession, want to put coaching on the map as something highly distinctive.
“RM: But isn’t it kind of a weird combination of consulting and therapy?
“BR: That’s right—when I talk to coaches and they describe what they do, it reveals that they’re doing a blend of things, and there was a nice typology put together by editors at Harvard Business Review that did show the overlap.
“I think, probably, the big difference many are trying to emphasize is that consulting would be about trying to come up with the answer, therapy would be about trying to get to self-understanding by understanding the past, and coaching is in the middle.
“[Coaching] should help you gain enough introspection to come up with your own solutions looking toward the future. [Leadership guru] Warren Benning was quoted as saying, basically, that the effort to distinguish it from therapy is partly just to make it more legitimate. No manager, certainly no for-profit one, is going to say, “I’ve got to stop our meeting now, it’s time for me to meet with my shrink.” But to say, “It’s time for me to meet with my coach” would be acceptable.”
This article from the Nonprofit Quarterly examines it.
An excerpt.
“Ruth McCambridge: If coaching is the answer, what’s the question?
“Bill Ryan: The question is, “If my organization wants to get to Point X, how am I, as a leader, in the way, and what do I need to do to get out of the way?” That’s a negative formulation of it. Another way to put it would be, “If my organization wants to get to Point X, what do I, as a leader, need to do to build on my strengths and manage my weaknesses to help it get there?”
“RM: It was interesting to see in the report how vague and all over the place the definitions of coaching are. Can you talk a little bit about what people mean when they talk about coaching?
“BR: There are lots of people attempting to nail down the definition. The practice of coaching is still relatively new, so everyone is trying to definitively type it, and, in particular, they’re very anxious to distinguish it from consulting or therapy. Some people, invested in the practice as a profession, want to put coaching on the map as something highly distinctive.
“RM: But isn’t it kind of a weird combination of consulting and therapy?
“BR: That’s right—when I talk to coaches and they describe what they do, it reveals that they’re doing a blend of things, and there was a nice typology put together by editors at Harvard Business Review that did show the overlap.
“I think, probably, the big difference many are trying to emphasize is that consulting would be about trying to come up with the answer, therapy would be about trying to get to self-understanding by understanding the past, and coaching is in the middle.
“[Coaching] should help you gain enough introspection to come up with your own solutions looking toward the future. [Leadership guru] Warren Benning was quoted as saying, basically, that the effort to distinguish it from therapy is partly just to make it more legitimate. No manager, certainly no for-profit one, is going to say, “I’ve got to stop our meeting now, it’s time for me to meet with my shrink.” But to say, “It’s time for me to meet with my coach” would be acceptable.”
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Optimism & Leadership
Excellent advice for anyone working within an organization, from Harvard Business Review.
An excerpt.
“One of my greatest mentors was the late Jay Chiat of TBWA Chiat Day, an iconoclast in the field of advertising with a constant imagination for possibilities in business and life. Jay embodied the three traits of a "lucky attitude" that I described in my last post: humility, intellectual curiosity, and optimism. Of these three characteristics, it was Jay's optimism which was perhaps his greatest lesson to me. He inspired people to embrace optimism — inside themselves, and also, as importantly, in others. It is a gift to understand how to project, share, and inspire with optimism. It is an even greater act of generosity to be inspired by optimism from others and to be willing to receive it.
“The capacity to be a natural recipient of ideas and other peoples' optimism is what makes for the ultimate optimist. You may be open to experimenting with new things, but do you truly see the good in something before the bad? The order of this thought process is critical: to try and see everything good in an idea before seeing anything bad. While most of us like to think we do, and would therefore self-describe ourselves as optimistic, more often (if we are truly honest with ourselves) we are natural critics (even cynics). Experience brings wisdom, but its collateral damage is that it can jade one against new concepts, turning many of us into Pavlovian skeptics. Whether we openly say it or not, we often think of what might be wrong with someone or something before we try to understand what might be right or good. The temptation and reflex for cynicism is usually more common than a natural responsive optimism. Cynicism is indeed the enemy of optimism.
“Here's a practical tool for the skeptic or cynic in all of us: the 24x3 rule. The next time you hear an idea for the first time, or meet someone new, try to wait 24 seconds before saying or thinking something negative. This reinforces a foundational skill of good optimists and good leadership. That basic skill is listening. As you gain the ability to listen and pause for a brief 24 seconds before letting the critic in you bubble to the verbal surface, move to the next level and try to do it for 24 minutes. At 24 minutes, you are able to give more considered thought to the idea and think more carefully of the many reasons why it might actually work, why it might be better than what is out there, and why it might just topple conventional wisdom.
“And yes, you should also work towards the ability to wait 24 hours — one single day — before pondering or verbalizing the cons against something. Of course, most times this will not be possible. Our minds cannot compartmentalize so easily, nor shut off our past experiences. But the 24x3 rule is a type of reflective meditation for developing a more optimistic approach towards people and ideas. The simple guideline of 24x24x24 is just a good reminder that a prerequisite of optimism is to have a willing suspension of disbelief.”
An excerpt.
“One of my greatest mentors was the late Jay Chiat of TBWA Chiat Day, an iconoclast in the field of advertising with a constant imagination for possibilities in business and life. Jay embodied the three traits of a "lucky attitude" that I described in my last post: humility, intellectual curiosity, and optimism. Of these three characteristics, it was Jay's optimism which was perhaps his greatest lesson to me. He inspired people to embrace optimism — inside themselves, and also, as importantly, in others. It is a gift to understand how to project, share, and inspire with optimism. It is an even greater act of generosity to be inspired by optimism from others and to be willing to receive it.
“The capacity to be a natural recipient of ideas and other peoples' optimism is what makes for the ultimate optimist. You may be open to experimenting with new things, but do you truly see the good in something before the bad? The order of this thought process is critical: to try and see everything good in an idea before seeing anything bad. While most of us like to think we do, and would therefore self-describe ourselves as optimistic, more often (if we are truly honest with ourselves) we are natural critics (even cynics). Experience brings wisdom, but its collateral damage is that it can jade one against new concepts, turning many of us into Pavlovian skeptics. Whether we openly say it or not, we often think of what might be wrong with someone or something before we try to understand what might be right or good. The temptation and reflex for cynicism is usually more common than a natural responsive optimism. Cynicism is indeed the enemy of optimism.
“Here's a practical tool for the skeptic or cynic in all of us: the 24x3 rule. The next time you hear an idea for the first time, or meet someone new, try to wait 24 seconds before saying or thinking something negative. This reinforces a foundational skill of good optimists and good leadership. That basic skill is listening. As you gain the ability to listen and pause for a brief 24 seconds before letting the critic in you bubble to the verbal surface, move to the next level and try to do it for 24 minutes. At 24 minutes, you are able to give more considered thought to the idea and think more carefully of the many reasons why it might actually work, why it might be better than what is out there, and why it might just topple conventional wisdom.
“And yes, you should also work towards the ability to wait 24 hours — one single day — before pondering or verbalizing the cons against something. Of course, most times this will not be possible. Our minds cannot compartmentalize so easily, nor shut off our past experiences. But the 24x3 rule is a type of reflective meditation for developing a more optimistic approach towards people and ideas. The simple guideline of 24x24x24 is just a good reminder that a prerequisite of optimism is to have a willing suspension of disbelief.”
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Nonprofit Management: Drucker's Seminal Classic
Yesterday I noted a new book that is an excellent resource for nonprofit leadership, and today I wanted to remind you that the seminal nonprofit management classic still reigns supreme, and that is Peter Drucker’s Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices.
Drucker, who passed away in 2005, is the most important thinker on management in America over the past several decades and his seminal book is a brief 250 pages that captures the timeless wisdom and wonderful insights marking his work.
Here are the opening two paragraphs.
“The non-profit organization exists to bring about a change in individuals and society. The first thing to talk about is what missions work and what missions don’t work, and how to define the mission. For the ultimate test is not the beauty of the mission statement. The ultimate test is right action.
“The most common question asked me by non-profit executives is: What are the qualities of a leader? The question seems to assume that leadership is something you can learn in a charm school. But it also assumes that leadership by itself is not enough, that it’s an end. And that’s misleadership. The leader who basically focuses on himself or herself is going to mislead. The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission. Therefore, the first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.” (p. 3)
Drucker, who passed away in 2005, is the most important thinker on management in America over the past several decades and his seminal book is a brief 250 pages that captures the timeless wisdom and wonderful insights marking his work.
Here are the opening two paragraphs.
“The non-profit organization exists to bring about a change in individuals and society. The first thing to talk about is what missions work and what missions don’t work, and how to define the mission. For the ultimate test is not the beauty of the mission statement. The ultimate test is right action.
“The most common question asked me by non-profit executives is: What are the qualities of a leader? The question seems to assume that leadership is something you can learn in a charm school. But it also assumes that leadership by itself is not enough, that it’s an end. And that’s misleadership. The leader who basically focuses on himself or herself is going to mislead. The three most charismatic leaders in this century inflicted more suffering on the human race than almost any trio in history: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. What matters is not the leader’s charisma. What matters is the leader’s mission. Therefore, the first job of the leader is to think through and define the mission of the institution.” (p. 3)
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Nonprofit Management: Basic & Advanced
Nonprofit Management 101: A Complete and Practical Guide for Leaders and Professionals, is a terrific book, with timeless advice from some of the top people in their respective nonprofit disciplines, reviewed here by Nonprofit About.com.
I added it to my library a few days ago, and suggest you get a copy also as it is a wonderful resource, and, as important, very fairly priced to fit within just about anyone's budget.
An excerpt.
“Lest you think that this book, at over 600 pages, is just a doorstop, let me assure you that you won't use it that way.
“These 50 essays from 50 nonprofit experts, such as Michael Watson of the Girl Scouts of the USA; David Greco of the Nonprofit Finance Fund; Holly Ross of NTEN; Andrea McManus of the AFP; Katya Andresen of Network for Good; and Beth Kanter of Zoetica, cover the gamut of nonprofit topics from human resources to social media.
“Furthermore, the essays embody the tried and true pillars of success associated with nonprofit work, while riding the edge of contemporary thought. They are not likely to go out of style any time soon.”
I added it to my library a few days ago, and suggest you get a copy also as it is a wonderful resource, and, as important, very fairly priced to fit within just about anyone's budget.
An excerpt.
“Lest you think that this book, at over 600 pages, is just a doorstop, let me assure you that you won't use it that way.
“These 50 essays from 50 nonprofit experts, such as Michael Watson of the Girl Scouts of the USA; David Greco of the Nonprofit Finance Fund; Holly Ross of NTEN; Andrea McManus of the AFP; Katya Andresen of Network for Good; and Beth Kanter of Zoetica, cover the gamut of nonprofit topics from human resources to social media.
“Furthermore, the essays embody the tried and true pillars of success associated with nonprofit work, while riding the edge of contemporary thought. They are not likely to go out of style any time soon.”
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Innovative Leadership
An article from Nonprofit Quarterly about the concept of shared leadership.
An excerpt.
“Even before the “Great Recession,” nonprofit leaders were told that they needed to learn how to do more with less. The field encouraged nonprofits to tighten their belts and look outside their organizations for solutions. Convinced that these approaches were not the only way, the authors, as part of a “Leadership Learning Community” (LLC) team organized by the TCC Group, worked with leaders of twenty-seven civic participation organizations from 2008 to 2010 to explore an alternative: building shared leadership within an organization.
“After two years of experimentation with shared leadership, TCC Group conducted an evaluation, and found that 78 percent of participants had increased their awareness, knowledge, and ability to develop staff as leaders at all levels of the organization. The evaluation, which included event feedback surveys, a post-initiative survey of all participants, and two participant focus groups, also revealed significant increases in both staff involvement in decision making and clear and effective accountability structures throughout the cohort. Many of the organizations discovered that they were able to do more effective work with less or the same amount of funds, and reported that shared leadership eased the stresses on executive directors. Essentially, the organizations found that they could do more with less (funds) by doing more with more (leadership).
“I. Shared Leadership . . . It Sounds Good but What Is It Exactly?
“Theories about organizational transformation have been pointing in the direction of shared leadership for more than three decades now. Experiments with “self-managing” work teams proliferated in the 1980s. In 1990, Peter M. Senge published The Fifth Discipline and popularized the concept of “learning organizations,” which called for leadership rooted in the roles of steward, teacher, and designer guided by continuous development of a capacity for understanding, action, and responsibility. In 1994, Jack Stack made waves with his book The Great Game of Business, where he championed the value of practicing “open-book management” and engaging workers at all levels in an ongoing process of innovation in the private sector. In 1999, Margaret J. Wheatley wrote in Leadership and the New Science, “Western cultural views of how best to organize and lead (now the methods most used in the world) are contrary to what life teaches. Leaders use control and imposition rather than participative, self-organizing processes.” And, in 2003, Joseph A. Raelin coined the term “leaderful” in his book Creating Leaderful Organizations, which describes an organization that intentionally creates the structure and culture needed to share leadership among staff, board, volunteers, and other stakeholders.
“In 2006, researchers Beverlyn Lundy Allen and Lois Wright Morton defined self-organization as the capacity that organizations need to solve the complex or “adaptive” problems they face today. One of the principal dimensions of self-organization they named was deeper diffusion of authority and responsibility into the organization. In 2007, Leslie R. Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant posited in Forces for Good that effective organizations share leadership across staff, board members, and external networks.6
“Despite this dramatic shift in leadership theory, our combined research and experience with nonprofit organizations reveal that most organizations continue to accept a hierarchical structure, with the executive director shouldering an enormous burden of responsibility for organizational success. The LLC participants generally reported that this was true of their organizations. However, we found that this concentration of power was not because executive directors were power hungry. Nor was it even deliberate. It was due to a lack of familiarity with the alternatives. The executive directors were interested in exploring ways to empower staff through more formally shared leadership, given their growing fatigue and their commitment to promoting values of community engagement and empowerment. Senior staff, feeling stretched thin and yet underutilized, were also invested in this change, viewing it as a way to advance their careers and develop other staff in a manner that aligned with their organizations’ social justice values.”
An excerpt.
“Even before the “Great Recession,” nonprofit leaders were told that they needed to learn how to do more with less. The field encouraged nonprofits to tighten their belts and look outside their organizations for solutions. Convinced that these approaches were not the only way, the authors, as part of a “Leadership Learning Community” (LLC) team organized by the TCC Group, worked with leaders of twenty-seven civic participation organizations from 2008 to 2010 to explore an alternative: building shared leadership within an organization.
“After two years of experimentation with shared leadership, TCC Group conducted an evaluation, and found that 78 percent of participants had increased their awareness, knowledge, and ability to develop staff as leaders at all levels of the organization. The evaluation, which included event feedback surveys, a post-initiative survey of all participants, and two participant focus groups, also revealed significant increases in both staff involvement in decision making and clear and effective accountability structures throughout the cohort. Many of the organizations discovered that they were able to do more effective work with less or the same amount of funds, and reported that shared leadership eased the stresses on executive directors. Essentially, the organizations found that they could do more with less (funds) by doing more with more (leadership).
“I. Shared Leadership . . . It Sounds Good but What Is It Exactly?
“Theories about organizational transformation have been pointing in the direction of shared leadership for more than three decades now. Experiments with “self-managing” work teams proliferated in the 1980s. In 1990, Peter M. Senge published The Fifth Discipline and popularized the concept of “learning organizations,” which called for leadership rooted in the roles of steward, teacher, and designer guided by continuous development of a capacity for understanding, action, and responsibility. In 1994, Jack Stack made waves with his book The Great Game of Business, where he championed the value of practicing “open-book management” and engaging workers at all levels in an ongoing process of innovation in the private sector. In 1999, Margaret J. Wheatley wrote in Leadership and the New Science, “Western cultural views of how best to organize and lead (now the methods most used in the world) are contrary to what life teaches. Leaders use control and imposition rather than participative, self-organizing processes.” And, in 2003, Joseph A. Raelin coined the term “leaderful” in his book Creating Leaderful Organizations, which describes an organization that intentionally creates the structure and culture needed to share leadership among staff, board, volunteers, and other stakeholders.
“In 2006, researchers Beverlyn Lundy Allen and Lois Wright Morton defined self-organization as the capacity that organizations need to solve the complex or “adaptive” problems they face today. One of the principal dimensions of self-organization they named was deeper diffusion of authority and responsibility into the organization. In 2007, Leslie R. Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant posited in Forces for Good that effective organizations share leadership across staff, board members, and external networks.6
“Despite this dramatic shift in leadership theory, our combined research and experience with nonprofit organizations reveal that most organizations continue to accept a hierarchical structure, with the executive director shouldering an enormous burden of responsibility for organizational success. The LLC participants generally reported that this was true of their organizations. However, we found that this concentration of power was not because executive directors were power hungry. Nor was it even deliberate. It was due to a lack of familiarity with the alternatives. The executive directors were interested in exploring ways to empower staff through more formally shared leadership, given their growing fatigue and their commitment to promoting values of community engagement and empowerment. Senior staff, feeling stretched thin and yet underutilized, were also invested in this change, viewing it as a way to advance their careers and develop other staff in a manner that aligned with their organizations’ social justice values.”
Monday, July 25, 2011
Firing the Founder
One of the first pieces of advice I give to any founding executive director of an organization I am consulting with, is to be on the board of directors and the executive committee, and this story from Blue Avocado relates what can happen otherwise.
The firing of the founding visionary of any nonprofit organization is something that should only occur after extraordinary attempts have been undertaken, with the founder involved every step of the way, to resolve organizational issues; and in most cases, especially involving one or two dissatisfied board members, they should resign rather that forcing the founder out.
If legal or malfeasance issues are involved, then of course, that is another story.
An excerpt.
“Four weeks and five days ago from this moment -- at 4 pm on a May afternoon -- I was fired. That morning the board chair told me our afternoon meeting would not be a finance committee meeting after all, but, rather, "about your future with the organization." The meeting lasted, at the most, 6 minutes.
"We would like you to resign," the board chair said.
"I have already submitted my resignation," I replied. Three weeks ago I had told the board I would be leaving in November. We were about to embark on a strategic planning process, and our big conference -- the one I created 11 years ago -- would be in the fall. That seemed like a fitting exit point.
"It's not acceptable to wait until November," he said. "We are terminating you effective immediately. Please turn in your keys and key card right now."
“I was furious, white hot mad. I narrowed my eyes and "did a Harold" (my father's name was Harold).
“He went on to tell me that I was not to go to the office to pick up my personal items unless a member of the board was present, and he would let me know who on the board to contact for that purpose.
“And that was it.
“I'm still furious. I'm mad at all the board members. I'm pissed at the new board members that I recruited because they didn't stop it. I'm mad at the old guard for being so sanctimonious. They don't have a clue. I'm angry because I should have been treated better and there's nothing I can do about it. And that's NOT FAIR.
"Since the morning call had been pretty clear about the purpose of the meeting, I had had a few hours to prepare. I told each staff member that I might be fired that afternoon. We had a fantastic team of five at the organization, and I believed it was important for them to know what might be coming down the road.
“After my meeting with the board chair, I went back to the office to tell the staff what had happened. The door was locked, although everyone's cars were still in the lot. There was no answer to my knock. I was struck with a huge, hurt fear that they were sitting in there having been told not to let me in. I later learned that, at the same time I was meeting with the two officers who fired me, another group of board members had gone to the office and taken everyone across the street to a coffee shop to tell them what was happening.
“So I went home. I cried. I slept.
“The next day a friend forwarded an email to me that had been sent to everyone on our distribution list -- about 2,500 people. It started like this: "Effective immediately, ____ is no longer the Executive Director of ____. Our organization is in trouble and the most significant issues relate to our finances."
“Should have seen the signs
“I should have seen the signs. But I didn't. Looking back now, I can pinpoint when the shift in board personality began: about 6 years ago. There was an evolution of the board from a group of enthusiastic, flexible individuals to a collection of people who engage in inwardly-focused groupthink. They were unwilling to engage in any sort of healthy debate. They consistently ignored the financial warning signs I pointed out, and they flat-out saw only limited responsibility for themselves to be fundraisers.
“Nearly three years ago I missed another piece of evidence. A long time board member remarked that boards should have executive sessions at every meeting -- without the CEO. And so they did.”
The firing of the founding visionary of any nonprofit organization is something that should only occur after extraordinary attempts have been undertaken, with the founder involved every step of the way, to resolve organizational issues; and in most cases, especially involving one or two dissatisfied board members, they should resign rather that forcing the founder out.
If legal or malfeasance issues are involved, then of course, that is another story.
An excerpt.
“Four weeks and five days ago from this moment -- at 4 pm on a May afternoon -- I was fired. That morning the board chair told me our afternoon meeting would not be a finance committee meeting after all, but, rather, "about your future with the organization." The meeting lasted, at the most, 6 minutes.
"We would like you to resign," the board chair said.
"I have already submitted my resignation," I replied. Three weeks ago I had told the board I would be leaving in November. We were about to embark on a strategic planning process, and our big conference -- the one I created 11 years ago -- would be in the fall. That seemed like a fitting exit point.
"It's not acceptable to wait until November," he said. "We are terminating you effective immediately. Please turn in your keys and key card right now."
“I was furious, white hot mad. I narrowed my eyes and "did a Harold" (my father's name was Harold).
“He went on to tell me that I was not to go to the office to pick up my personal items unless a member of the board was present, and he would let me know who on the board to contact for that purpose.
“And that was it.
“I'm still furious. I'm mad at all the board members. I'm pissed at the new board members that I recruited because they didn't stop it. I'm mad at the old guard for being so sanctimonious. They don't have a clue. I'm angry because I should have been treated better and there's nothing I can do about it. And that's NOT FAIR.
"Since the morning call had been pretty clear about the purpose of the meeting, I had had a few hours to prepare. I told each staff member that I might be fired that afternoon. We had a fantastic team of five at the organization, and I believed it was important for them to know what might be coming down the road.
“After my meeting with the board chair, I went back to the office to tell the staff what had happened. The door was locked, although everyone's cars were still in the lot. There was no answer to my knock. I was struck with a huge, hurt fear that they were sitting in there having been told not to let me in. I later learned that, at the same time I was meeting with the two officers who fired me, another group of board members had gone to the office and taken everyone across the street to a coffee shop to tell them what was happening.
“So I went home. I cried. I slept.
“The next day a friend forwarded an email to me that had been sent to everyone on our distribution list -- about 2,500 people. It started like this: "Effective immediately, ____ is no longer the Executive Director of ____. Our organization is in trouble and the most significant issues relate to our finances."
“Should have seen the signs
“I should have seen the signs. But I didn't. Looking back now, I can pinpoint when the shift in board personality began: about 6 years ago. There was an evolution of the board from a group of enthusiastic, flexible individuals to a collection of people who engage in inwardly-focused groupthink. They were unwilling to engage in any sort of healthy debate. They consistently ignored the financial warning signs I pointed out, and they flat-out saw only limited responsibility for themselves to be fundraisers.
“Nearly three years ago I missed another piece of evidence. A long time board member remarked that boards should have executive sessions at every meeting -- without the CEO. And so they did.”
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Organizational Problems? Look to Leadership
Though this is virtually ancient history for anyone involved in studying the field of management, it still never hurts to be reminded anew: that leadership sets the pace, as this article from Harvard Business Weekly notes.
An excerpt.
“When CEOs speak with Rob Kaplan looking for answers, he usually focuses them instead on figuring out and discussing the right questions.
"Show me a company, nonprofit, or a government leader that is struggling, and almost invariably you'll see someone who isn't sufficiently focused on asking the right questions," says Kaplan, a Professor of Management Practice at Harvard Business School. "Most leaders spend a lot of their time looking for answers. Very often, they may feel isolated and alone. I want to help them refocus their attention on framing and then discussing the key questions that will help them regroup, mobilize their team, formulate a plan of action, and move forward."
“In his new book, What to Ask the Person in the Mirror , Kaplan argues against the notion that great leadership is about having all the answers. He believes that leadership skills can be learned--and that many of these skills require executives to rethink their conception of what a superb leader actually does. Developing and practicing these skills requires hard work and may demand that talented executives overcome some degree of discomfort and even anxiety in order to raise their game.
“The book discusses several key areas of inquiry that can help leaders improve the success of their companies and nonprofit organizations including: vision and priorities, managing your time, giving and getting feedback, succession planning and delegation, evaluation and alignment, being a role model, and reaching your potential. "My objective is to help leaders reach their potential by helping them realize that they don't need to have all the answers or do this alone. I hope they will see that framing a question and listening can be enormously powerful in leading to excellent decisions. A leader needs to master the use of inquiry and reflection as well as advocacy in order to build his or her organization and career."
“Have you developed a clear vision and key priorities for your enterprise?
"When I see a problem with a business or nonprofit, it often starts with a lack of clarity about the organization's aspirations," Kaplan says. The leader may have a clear vision in his or her head but has not communicated it effectively throughout the organization. "When there is not a clearly articulated vision along with a manageable set of key priorities, you may see an organization where employees are expending their energies in a number of divergent and uncoordinated directions."
“Leaders need to ask whether they articulate a clear vision and, just as importantly, whether their key employees can rearticulate this vision in a consistent manner. For instance, DuPont's vision is "to be the world's most dynamic science company, creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer and healthier life for people everywhere." This vision helps DuPont employees better understand what (and why) they are spending their professional energies trying to accomplish.
“Once the vision is established, Kaplan advises leaders to come up with and communicate a list of no more than three to five priorities that are critical to the organization in order to achieve the vision. In his book, Kaplan describes various approaches to formulating and adapting these priorities to each department and geographic region in order to better achieve overall organization objectives. "When a leadership has this discipline, they focus much more intently on what tasks they need to do superbly well in order to achieve their goals. This also can help them to question certain activities where they are spending substantial time and money yet not contributing to organizational goals and maybe they shouldn't be pursuing."
An excerpt.
“When CEOs speak with Rob Kaplan looking for answers, he usually focuses them instead on figuring out and discussing the right questions.
"Show me a company, nonprofit, or a government leader that is struggling, and almost invariably you'll see someone who isn't sufficiently focused on asking the right questions," says Kaplan, a Professor of Management Practice at Harvard Business School. "Most leaders spend a lot of their time looking for answers. Very often, they may feel isolated and alone. I want to help them refocus their attention on framing and then discussing the key questions that will help them regroup, mobilize their team, formulate a plan of action, and move forward."
“In his new book, What to Ask the Person in the Mirror , Kaplan argues against the notion that great leadership is about having all the answers. He believes that leadership skills can be learned--and that many of these skills require executives to rethink their conception of what a superb leader actually does. Developing and practicing these skills requires hard work and may demand that talented executives overcome some degree of discomfort and even anxiety in order to raise their game.
“The book discusses several key areas of inquiry that can help leaders improve the success of their companies and nonprofit organizations including: vision and priorities, managing your time, giving and getting feedback, succession planning and delegation, evaluation and alignment, being a role model, and reaching your potential. "My objective is to help leaders reach their potential by helping them realize that they don't need to have all the answers or do this alone. I hope they will see that framing a question and listening can be enormously powerful in leading to excellent decisions. A leader needs to master the use of inquiry and reflection as well as advocacy in order to build his or her organization and career."
“Have you developed a clear vision and key priorities for your enterprise?
"When I see a problem with a business or nonprofit, it often starts with a lack of clarity about the organization's aspirations," Kaplan says. The leader may have a clear vision in his or her head but has not communicated it effectively throughout the organization. "When there is not a clearly articulated vision along with a manageable set of key priorities, you may see an organization where employees are expending their energies in a number of divergent and uncoordinated directions."
“Leaders need to ask whether they articulate a clear vision and, just as importantly, whether their key employees can rearticulate this vision in a consistent manner. For instance, DuPont's vision is "to be the world's most dynamic science company, creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer and healthier life for people everywhere." This vision helps DuPont employees better understand what (and why) they are spending their professional energies trying to accomplish.
“Once the vision is established, Kaplan advises leaders to come up with and communicate a list of no more than three to five priorities that are critical to the organization in order to achieve the vision. In his book, Kaplan describes various approaches to formulating and adapting these priorities to each department and geographic region in order to better achieve overall organization objectives. "When a leadership has this discipline, they focus much more intently on what tasks they need to do superbly well in order to achieve their goals. This also can help them to question certain activities where they are spending substantial time and money yet not contributing to organizational goals and maybe they shouldn't be pursuing."
Monday, July 11, 2011
Nonprofit Compensation
It is often a controversial subject and this Interview in the Nonprofit Quarterly examines it.
An excerpt.
“Jon Pratt: Recently, Charities Review Council of Minnesota conducted a public opinion poll that asked 800 people in Minnesota to pick a statement that best described their view of nonprofit pay. The choices were:
“Employees of charities should receive wages comparable to for-profit employees” (42 percent agreed);
“Employees of charities should receive wages comparable to for-profit employees” (42 percent agreed);
“Employees should be paid less than their for-profit counterparts but enough to earn a living” (34 percent agreed);
“Employees should be drawn to their work out of a commitment and paid no more than a stipend” (14 percent agreed); and
“Don’t know” (10 percent agreed).
"What do you think these responses say about the public’s understanding of nonprofit compensation?
“Paul Light: Well, it suggests that 42 percent, or a substantial minority of Minnesotans, believe that nonprofit employees deserve a fair wage, and that’s a positive. But when you get to the next group that says they should be paid less, and to the group that says no more than a stipend—which, combined, is the majority—it demonstrates a real problem. There may be an element of the “vow of poverty” theory among the ones who think this way. And I’ll bet if you had asked the whole group whether executive directors should be paid the same as corporate CEOs, the answer would have been emphatically no!
“But your survey pretty much reinforces the results of a survey I conducted in 2008 with a national sample, where we asked, “Do you think that the heads of charitable organizations are paid too much, too little, or just right?” The number who said “too little” was 4 or 5 percent; the number who said “too much” was in the high 40s. The 40 percent who say “too much” has been pretty steady over time, suggesting that many Americans believe that employees of charitable organizations should take a discount or pay cut because they’ve signed on to help others.
“JP: A frequent comparison group for reasonableness of nonprofit compensation is government pay scales, where civil service systems and public oversight bodies have developed very transparent structures of grades, ladders, and steps. Government compensation has been a major news item in 2011, with a wave of freezes, reductions, and public criticism of government salaries, pension benefits, and collective bargaining rights for public employees. The governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and New Jersey each made this a major issue. What do you see as the implications for nonprofit compensation?
“PL: Most of the public says that federal employees are just paid too much, and there’s a lot of false information out there about that, based on averages of what federal employees get versus what private employees get. The gross generalizations fuel the public’s notion that the federal government wastes a great deal of money, which is built on anger toward Washington and toward government in general.
“JP: Congress and the IRS have increased attention on nonprofit compensation. Nonprofit organizations with employees paid more than $150,000 are required to provide supplemental information about compensation on Schedule J.
“PL: It’s a frustrating paradox that Congress doesn’t care very much about how much private CEOs—corporate CEOs—make. Basically, if it’s in the private sector, we’re not going to worry too much about it. But if it’s in government or nonprofit-land, it is fair game.”
An excerpt.
“Jon Pratt: Recently, Charities Review Council of Minnesota conducted a public opinion poll that asked 800 people in Minnesota to pick a statement that best described their view of nonprofit pay. The choices were:
“Employees of charities should receive wages comparable to for-profit employees” (42 percent agreed);
“Employees of charities should receive wages comparable to for-profit employees” (42 percent agreed);
“Employees should be paid less than their for-profit counterparts but enough to earn a living” (34 percent agreed);
“Employees should be drawn to their work out of a commitment and paid no more than a stipend” (14 percent agreed); and
“Don’t know” (10 percent agreed).
"What do you think these responses say about the public’s understanding of nonprofit compensation?
“Paul Light: Well, it suggests that 42 percent, or a substantial minority of Minnesotans, believe that nonprofit employees deserve a fair wage, and that’s a positive. But when you get to the next group that says they should be paid less, and to the group that says no more than a stipend—which, combined, is the majority—it demonstrates a real problem. There may be an element of the “vow of poverty” theory among the ones who think this way. And I’ll bet if you had asked the whole group whether executive directors should be paid the same as corporate CEOs, the answer would have been emphatically no!
“But your survey pretty much reinforces the results of a survey I conducted in 2008 with a national sample, where we asked, “Do you think that the heads of charitable organizations are paid too much, too little, or just right?” The number who said “too little” was 4 or 5 percent; the number who said “too much” was in the high 40s. The 40 percent who say “too much” has been pretty steady over time, suggesting that many Americans believe that employees of charitable organizations should take a discount or pay cut because they’ve signed on to help others.
“JP: A frequent comparison group for reasonableness of nonprofit compensation is government pay scales, where civil service systems and public oversight bodies have developed very transparent structures of grades, ladders, and steps. Government compensation has been a major news item in 2011, with a wave of freezes, reductions, and public criticism of government salaries, pension benefits, and collective bargaining rights for public employees. The governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and New Jersey each made this a major issue. What do you see as the implications for nonprofit compensation?
“PL: Most of the public says that federal employees are just paid too much, and there’s a lot of false information out there about that, based on averages of what federal employees get versus what private employees get. The gross generalizations fuel the public’s notion that the federal government wastes a great deal of money, which is built on anger toward Washington and toward government in general.
“JP: Congress and the IRS have increased attention on nonprofit compensation. Nonprofit organizations with employees paid more than $150,000 are required to provide supplemental information about compensation on Schedule J.
“PL: It’s a frustrating paradox that Congress doesn’t care very much about how much private CEOs—corporate CEOs—make. Basically, if it’s in the private sector, we’re not going to worry too much about it. But if it’s in government or nonprofit-land, it is fair game.”
Friday, July 8, 2011
Leadership, Part Two
A good article, examining the different types of people who become leaders--perhaps ringing a few bells for some of us--from Harvard Business Weekly.
An excerpt.
“The central, most telling question to ask a leader is, whom do you serve?
“Some leaders will tell you, using a popular descriptor, that they aspire to be "servant leaders." The question still remains, however, a servant to whom: to yourself, to your group, or to society (to cite three of several options)?
“Asking the question whom do you serve? is a powerful vector on which to build a useful typology of leadership. Based on this idea, I have constructed a six-level Purpose-Driven Model of Leadership informed by the work of Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and his colleague, Robert Kegan (see table 1). The answer to the question whom do you serve often reveals more about leaders than knowing their personality traits, level of achievement, or whether they were "transformational" or "transactional" leaders.
“Level One: Sociopath
"At the base of the model is the person who literally serves no one: the Sociopath. The Sociopath, afflicted with what the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) describes as antisocial personality disorder, exhibits abnormally low empathy and destroys value, himself, and, ultimately, those who surround him as well. (I use the male pronoun because the vast majority of Sociopaths and psychopaths are male.) Fortunately, Sociopaths comprise less than 1 percent of the population. An excellent current example is Muammar Gaddafi, who is destroying his country, his tribe, his family, and, in time, himself. Indeed, he serves no one. The same was true of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
“Level Two: Opportunist
"The second level is the leader who serves only himself or herself, often at the expense of others: the Opportunist. These are the people who always ask, "What's in it for me?" Their moral compass is guided primarily by the accumulation of wealth and power, all else be damned. Bernie Madoff, now in prison, is a poster boy for the Opportunists. While Madoff enjoyed the luxuries of a life of wealth and power, hundreds if not thousands of retirees saw their nest eggs evaporate because of their unwitting participation in a deliberately contrived Ponzi scheme that, in time, became the largest ($50 billion) in Wall Street history. By this measure, or in terms of the families brought to financial ruin, Madoff remains one of the modern world's greatest Opportunists. Also of this genre, although somewhat lesser known, is Jeffrey Skilling, the Enron CEO who sold off tens of millions of dollars of stock just before Enron filed for bankruptcy, claiming he had no knowledge of the scandal that would engulf his company. He was sentenced to 24 years and four months in prison.”
An excerpt.
“The central, most telling question to ask a leader is, whom do you serve?
“Some leaders will tell you, using a popular descriptor, that they aspire to be "servant leaders." The question still remains, however, a servant to whom: to yourself, to your group, or to society (to cite three of several options)?
“Asking the question whom do you serve? is a powerful vector on which to build a useful typology of leadership. Based on this idea, I have constructed a six-level Purpose-Driven Model of Leadership informed by the work of Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and his colleague, Robert Kegan (see table 1). The answer to the question whom do you serve often reveals more about leaders than knowing their personality traits, level of achievement, or whether they were "transformational" or "transactional" leaders.
“Level One: Sociopath
"At the base of the model is the person who literally serves no one: the Sociopath. The Sociopath, afflicted with what the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) describes as antisocial personality disorder, exhibits abnormally low empathy and destroys value, himself, and, ultimately, those who surround him as well. (I use the male pronoun because the vast majority of Sociopaths and psychopaths are male.) Fortunately, Sociopaths comprise less than 1 percent of the population. An excellent current example is Muammar Gaddafi, who is destroying his country, his tribe, his family, and, in time, himself. Indeed, he serves no one. The same was true of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
“Level Two: Opportunist
"The second level is the leader who serves only himself or herself, often at the expense of others: the Opportunist. These are the people who always ask, "What's in it for me?" Their moral compass is guided primarily by the accumulation of wealth and power, all else be damned. Bernie Madoff, now in prison, is a poster boy for the Opportunists. While Madoff enjoyed the luxuries of a life of wealth and power, hundreds if not thousands of retirees saw their nest eggs evaporate because of their unwitting participation in a deliberately contrived Ponzi scheme that, in time, became the largest ($50 billion) in Wall Street history. By this measure, or in terms of the families brought to financial ruin, Madoff remains one of the modern world's greatest Opportunists. Also of this genre, although somewhat lesser known, is Jeffrey Skilling, the Enron CEO who sold off tens of millions of dollars of stock just before Enron filed for bankruptcy, claiming he had no knowledge of the scandal that would engulf his company. He was sentenced to 24 years and four months in prison.”
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Leadership, Part One
Good article from Harvard Business Review, which takes a look at why.
An excerpt.
“In recent months, several high-level leaders have mysteriously lost their way. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund and a leading French politician, was arraigned on charges of sexual assault. Before that, David Sokol, rumored to be Warren Buffett's successor, was forced to resign for trading in Lubrizol stock prior to recommending that Berkshire Hathaway purchase the company. Examples abound of other recent failures:
“Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd resigned for submitting false expense reports concerning his relationship with a contractor.
“U.S. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) resigned after covering up an extramarital affair with monetary payoffs.
“Lee B. Farkas, former chairman of giant mortgage lender Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, in April was found guilty for his role in one of the largest bank fraud schemes in American history.
“These talented leaders were highly successful in their respective fields and at the peak of their careers. This makes their behavior especially perplexing, raising questions about what caused them to lose their way:
“Why do leaders known for integrity and leadership engage in unethical activities?
“Why do they risk great careers and unblemished reputations for such ephemeral gains?
“Do they think they won't get caught or believe their elevated status puts them above the law?
“Was this the first time they did something inappropriate, or have they been on the slippery slope for years?
“In these ongoing revelations, the media, politicians, and the general public frequently characterize these leaders as bad people, even calling them evil. Simplistic notions of good and bad only cloud our understanding of why good leaders lose their way, and how this could happen to any of us.
“Leaders who lose their way are not necessarily bad people; rather, they lose their moral bearings, often yielding to seductions in their paths. Very few people go into leadership roles to cheat or do evil, yet we all have the capacity for actions we deeply regret unless we stay grounded.
“Self-reflection: a path to leadership development
“Before anyone takes on a leadership role, they should ask themselves, "Why do I want to lead?" and "What's the purpose of my leadership?" These questions are simple to ask, but finding the real answers may take decades. If the honest answers are power, prestige, and money, leaders are at risk of relying on external gratification for fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with desiring these outward symbols as long as they are combined with a deeper desire to serve something greater than oneself.
“Leaders whose goal is the quest for power over others, unlimited wealth, or the fame that comes with success tend to look to others to gain satisfaction, and often appear self-centered and egotistical. They start to believe their own press. As leaders of institutions, they eventually believe the institution cannot succeed without them.”
An excerpt.
“In recent months, several high-level leaders have mysteriously lost their way. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund and a leading French politician, was arraigned on charges of sexual assault. Before that, David Sokol, rumored to be Warren Buffett's successor, was forced to resign for trading in Lubrizol stock prior to recommending that Berkshire Hathaway purchase the company. Examples abound of other recent failures:
“Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd resigned for submitting false expense reports concerning his relationship with a contractor.
“U.S. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) resigned after covering up an extramarital affair with monetary payoffs.
“Lee B. Farkas, former chairman of giant mortgage lender Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, in April was found guilty for his role in one of the largest bank fraud schemes in American history.
“These talented leaders were highly successful in their respective fields and at the peak of their careers. This makes their behavior especially perplexing, raising questions about what caused them to lose their way:
“Why do leaders known for integrity and leadership engage in unethical activities?
“Why do they risk great careers and unblemished reputations for such ephemeral gains?
“Do they think they won't get caught or believe their elevated status puts them above the law?
“Was this the first time they did something inappropriate, or have they been on the slippery slope for years?
“In these ongoing revelations, the media, politicians, and the general public frequently characterize these leaders as bad people, even calling them evil. Simplistic notions of good and bad only cloud our understanding of why good leaders lose their way, and how this could happen to any of us.
“Leaders who lose their way are not necessarily bad people; rather, they lose their moral bearings, often yielding to seductions in their paths. Very few people go into leadership roles to cheat or do evil, yet we all have the capacity for actions we deeply regret unless we stay grounded.
“Self-reflection: a path to leadership development
“Before anyone takes on a leadership role, they should ask themselves, "Why do I want to lead?" and "What's the purpose of my leadership?" These questions are simple to ask, but finding the real answers may take decades. If the honest answers are power, prestige, and money, leaders are at risk of relying on external gratification for fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with desiring these outward symbols as long as they are combined with a deeper desire to serve something greater than oneself.
“Leaders whose goal is the quest for power over others, unlimited wealth, or the fame that comes with success tend to look to others to gain satisfaction, and often appear self-centered and egotistical. They start to believe their own press. As leaders of institutions, they eventually believe the institution cannot succeed without them.”
Monday, June 13, 2011
From Career to Calling
If you are fortunate enough to be combining both already, this story will validate your effort, but for those making that shift, this article is an excellent resource from Stanford Social Innovation Review.
An excerpt.
“John Kerr spent most of his life working for Boston’s main public television station. After 40 years, he stuffed his possessions into a storage locker, sold his house, and headed for Wyoming—not to retire but to fulfill his dream of working in the national parks.
“Today, Kerr is a summertime park ranger in Yellowstone, keeping people and bears away from each other. How did he get from WGBH fundraiser to part-time park employee? By talking his way into an internship designed for people almost half a century younger.
“Kerr, and millions of others his age, are wending their way into uncharted territory, reaching the spot where middle age used to end and old age once began. They want work that matters, but they’re finding it’s a do-it-yourself project with few pathways and little help getting from what’s past to what’s next.
“It shouldn’t be so hard. The surge of people into this new, encore stage of life—after midlife and before true old age—is one of the most important phenomena of the new century. Never before have so many people had so much experience—as well as the time and capacity—to do something significant with it. That’s the great potential payoff on all the progress we’ve made in extending lives.”
An excerpt.
“John Kerr spent most of his life working for Boston’s main public television station. After 40 years, he stuffed his possessions into a storage locker, sold his house, and headed for Wyoming—not to retire but to fulfill his dream of working in the national parks.
“Today, Kerr is a summertime park ranger in Yellowstone, keeping people and bears away from each other. How did he get from WGBH fundraiser to part-time park employee? By talking his way into an internship designed for people almost half a century younger.
“Kerr, and millions of others his age, are wending their way into uncharted territory, reaching the spot where middle age used to end and old age once began. They want work that matters, but they’re finding it’s a do-it-yourself project with few pathways and little help getting from what’s past to what’s next.
“It shouldn’t be so hard. The surge of people into this new, encore stage of life—after midlife and before true old age—is one of the most important phenomena of the new century. Never before have so many people had so much experience—as well as the time and capacity—to do something significant with it. That’s the great potential payoff on all the progress we’ve made in extending lives.”
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Leadership & Character
They are inexorably entwined in successful and optimal ventures, and what keeps them congruent is contemplation, reflection, thinking about and through one’s life and dreams in relation to one’s work, be it a calling or a career, which, in the best of all worlds, is both.
This article from Harvard Business Weekly examines the linkage.
An excerpt.
“In recent months several high-level leaders have mysteriously lost their way. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund and a leading French politician, was arraigned on charges of sexual assault. Before that David Sokol, rumored to be Warren Buffett's successor, was forced to resign for trading in Lubrizol stock prior to recommending that Berkshire Hathaway purchase the company. Examples abound of other recent failures:
• Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd resigned for submitting false expense reports concerning his relationship with a contractor.
• US Senator John Ensign (R-NV) resigned after covering up an extramarital affair with monetary payoffs.
• Lee B. Farkas, former chairman of giant mortgage lender Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, in April was found guilty for his role in one of the largest bank fraud schemes in American history.
“These talented leaders were highly successful in their respective fields and at the peak of their careers. This makes their behavior especially perplexing, raising questions about what caused them to lose their way:
• Why do leaders known for integrity and leadership engage in unethical activities?
• Why do they risk great careers and unblemished reputations for such ephemeral gains?
• Do they think they won't get caught or believe their elevated status puts them above the law?
• Was this the first time they did something inappropriate, or have they been on the slippery slope for years?
“In these ongoing revelations, the media, politicians, and the general public frequently characterize these leaders as bad people, even calling them evil. Simplistic notions of good and bad only cloud our understanding of why good leaders lose their way, and how this could happen to any of us.
“Leaders who lose their way are not bad people; rather, they lose their moral bearings, often yielding to seductions in their paths. Very few people go into leadership roles to cheat or do evil, yet we all have the capacity for actions we deeply regret unless we stay grounded.
“Self-reflection: a path to leadership development
"Before anyone takes on a leadership role, they should ask themselves, "Why do I want to lead?" and "What's the purpose of my leadership?" These questions are simple to ask, but finding the real answers may take decades. If the honest answers are power, prestige, and money, leaders are at risk of relying on external gratification for fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with desiring these outward symbols as long as they are combined with a deeper desire to serve something greater than oneself.
“Leaders whose goal is the quest for power over others, unlimited wealth, or the fame that comes with success tend to look to others to gain satisfaction, and often appear self-centered and egotistical. They start to believe their own press. As leaders of institutions, they eventually believe the institution cannot succeed without them.”
This article from Harvard Business Weekly examines the linkage.
An excerpt.
“In recent months several high-level leaders have mysteriously lost their way. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund and a leading French politician, was arraigned on charges of sexual assault. Before that David Sokol, rumored to be Warren Buffett's successor, was forced to resign for trading in Lubrizol stock prior to recommending that Berkshire Hathaway purchase the company. Examples abound of other recent failures:
• Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd resigned for submitting false expense reports concerning his relationship with a contractor.
• US Senator John Ensign (R-NV) resigned after covering up an extramarital affair with monetary payoffs.
• Lee B. Farkas, former chairman of giant mortgage lender Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, in April was found guilty for his role in one of the largest bank fraud schemes in American history.
“These talented leaders were highly successful in their respective fields and at the peak of their careers. This makes their behavior especially perplexing, raising questions about what caused them to lose their way:
• Why do leaders known for integrity and leadership engage in unethical activities?
• Why do they risk great careers and unblemished reputations for such ephemeral gains?
• Do they think they won't get caught or believe their elevated status puts them above the law?
• Was this the first time they did something inappropriate, or have they been on the slippery slope for years?
“In these ongoing revelations, the media, politicians, and the general public frequently characterize these leaders as bad people, even calling them evil. Simplistic notions of good and bad only cloud our understanding of why good leaders lose their way, and how this could happen to any of us.
“Leaders who lose their way are not bad people; rather, they lose their moral bearings, often yielding to seductions in their paths. Very few people go into leadership roles to cheat or do evil, yet we all have the capacity for actions we deeply regret unless we stay grounded.
“Self-reflection: a path to leadership development
"Before anyone takes on a leadership role, they should ask themselves, "Why do I want to lead?" and "What's the purpose of my leadership?" These questions are simple to ask, but finding the real answers may take decades. If the honest answers are power, prestige, and money, leaders are at risk of relying on external gratification for fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with desiring these outward symbols as long as they are combined with a deeper desire to serve something greater than oneself.
“Leaders whose goal is the quest for power over others, unlimited wealth, or the fame that comes with success tend to look to others to gain satisfaction, and often appear self-centered and egotistical. They start to believe their own press. As leaders of institutions, they eventually believe the institution cannot succeed without them.”
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Nonprofit/Forprofit Boards
This is a book review of a new book (having greater value than a book soley about nonprofit boards in the congruence between the two) about boards and transitioning from one to the other, from Harvard Business Weekly.
An excerpt.
“Editor's note: For those of who have attended meetings of both nonprofit and for-profit boards, the differences between the two organizations couldn't be clearer. Nonprofit boards meetings tend to be longer, less tightly organized, and more sporadically attended by the board members themselves. Why this happens is one of the many subjects discussed in the new book Joining a Nonprofit Board: What You Need to Know, by authors Marc J. Epstein of Rice University and F. Warren McFarlan of Harvard Business School. In this excerpt from the introduction, Rice and McFarland highlight the major similarities and differences between the different types of boards and what newcomers to nonprofit governance can expect.
“Comparing Nonprofits and For-Profits
"There are a number of important similarities and differences between the operations and challenges of nonprofits and for-profits of which a new nonprofit board member must be cognizant. Some of the more important items are discussed in this section.
“Similarities
"There are a number of similarities between for-profits and non-profits which make people with for-profit experience particularly helpful as board members. The key similarities include:
1. Both organizations can grow, transform, merge, or die. Success is not guaranteed for either type of organization, but requires sustained work.
2. In both cases, cash is king. This for-profit focus is critical for a nonprofit board.
3. In both settings, good management and leadership really matter. Delivery of service, motivating and inspiring staff, and conceiving of new directions for growth are all vitally important.
4. Planning, budgeting, and measurement systems in are vital in both settings.
5. Both types of organizations face the challenges of integrating subject matter specialists into a generalist framework.
6. Both organizations add value to society. They just do it in different ways.
"In short, there is much overlap between the skills needed and perspectives provided by leaders in the two types of organizations. This is a key reason why social enterprise courses have taken root in business schools and why, appropriately socialized, those with for-profit backgrounds can contribute so much to the nonprofit world.”
An excerpt.
“Editor's note: For those of who have attended meetings of both nonprofit and for-profit boards, the differences between the two organizations couldn't be clearer. Nonprofit boards meetings tend to be longer, less tightly organized, and more sporadically attended by the board members themselves. Why this happens is one of the many subjects discussed in the new book Joining a Nonprofit Board: What You Need to Know, by authors Marc J. Epstein of Rice University and F. Warren McFarlan of Harvard Business School. In this excerpt from the introduction, Rice and McFarland highlight the major similarities and differences between the different types of boards and what newcomers to nonprofit governance can expect.
“Comparing Nonprofits and For-Profits
"There are a number of important similarities and differences between the operations and challenges of nonprofits and for-profits of which a new nonprofit board member must be cognizant. Some of the more important items are discussed in this section.
“Similarities
"There are a number of similarities between for-profits and non-profits which make people with for-profit experience particularly helpful as board members. The key similarities include:
1. Both organizations can grow, transform, merge, or die. Success is not guaranteed for either type of organization, but requires sustained work.
2. In both cases, cash is king. This for-profit focus is critical for a nonprofit board.
3. In both settings, good management and leadership really matter. Delivery of service, motivating and inspiring staff, and conceiving of new directions for growth are all vitally important.
4. Planning, budgeting, and measurement systems in are vital in both settings.
5. Both types of organizations face the challenges of integrating subject matter specialists into a generalist framework.
6. Both organizations add value to society. They just do it in different ways.
"In short, there is much overlap between the skills needed and perspectives provided by leaders in the two types of organizations. This is a key reason why social enterprise courses have taken root in business schools and why, appropriately socialized, those with for-profit backgrounds can contribute so much to the nonprofit world.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
