What It Takes To Get A Lake Named After You

Say the name Foster Sayers around here and most people will

reference the lake encompassed by Bald Eagle State Park.

Sayers was just a country kid from Centre County, Pennsylvania. Some called him a bit of a roustabout...a ruffian. Feeling a bit aimless he volunteered for the US Army in the middle of WWII.  Then, in November of 1944 he moved forward on his own initiative to engage two German machine gun emplacements and drawing their fire so the rest of his company could move across an open field and outflank the enemy position. While his mates wiped out the Germans, Sayers was hit multiple times and died that day from his wounds.

Foster Sayers was posthumously awarded our nation's highest honor, the Congressional Medal Of Honor

From his citation:

He displayed conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty in combat on 12 November 1944, near Thionville, France. During an attack on strong hostile forces entrenched on a hill he fearlessly ran up the steep approach toward his objective and set up his machinegun 20 yards from the enemy. Realizing it would be necessary to attract full attention of the dug-in Germans while his company crossed an open area and flanked the enemy, he picked up his gun, charged through withering machinegun and rifle fire to the very edge of the emplacement, and there killed 12 German soldiers with devastating close-range fire. He took up a position behind a log and engaged the hostile infantry from the flank in an heroic attempt to distract their attention while his comrades attained their objective at the crest of the hill. He was killed by the very heavy concentration of return fire; but his fearless assault enabled his company to sweep the hill with minimum of casualties, killing or capturing every enemy soldier on it. Pfc. Sayers' indomitable fighting spirit, aggressiveness, and supreme devotion to duty live on as an example of the highest traditions of the military service.

 
He was just 20 years old. 

The Damage When Everyone Is Just 'Doing Their Job'

Every now and then one is confronted with something so absurd that it makes one want to

run off and sit in the meadow for a mass dandelion break.

In this case it was last week’s briefing by President Obama’s spokesperson Jay Carney stepped in front of reporters to explain the White House’s role in the IRS playing political favorites and the Department of Justice secretly obtaining the call logs of the Associated Press.  This is not a Red Team/Blue Team commentary….forget the partisan talking points for a moment. What continually depresses most Americans is that this press conference was just another accepted routine bit of Theater Of The Absurd. 

Jay Carney is a smart man.  Has to be in order to get that high up the food chain.  But everyone knows he didn’t believe half of what he was saying that day.  He was Just Doing His Job.   And the journalists sitting in the crowd that day.  Also very smart people at the top of their industry.  Not one willing to stand up and say “Oh this is just BS”.  Instead they reported in dry terms the typical He Said/She Said “balanced” reporting.  They were Just Doing Their Job.

In that context I came across Seth Godin’s recent post concerning Thomas Midgley, the man famous of his invention of CFCs and the idea of putting lead into gasoline in order to reduce engine knock...both environmentally destructive innovations.  However, the patents on those ideas were worth billions.

Of course the introduction of lead immediately had serious health consequences for refinery workers. Yet Midgely and others quick downplayed the effects.  As Godin notes:

An entrenched industry needs the public and its governments to ignore what they're doing so they can defend their status quo and extract the maximum value from their assets.

I would add this also applies doubly so to entrenched government bureaucracies, media outlets, and even third sector advocacy organizations.

Godin continues:

And we give them a pass. Because it's their job, or because it's our job, or because our culture has created a dividing line between individuals who create negative impacts and organizations that do.

People who just might, in other circumstances, stand up and speak up, decide to quietly stand by, or worse, actively lie as they engage in PR campaigns aimed at belittling or undermining those that are brave enough to point out just how damaging the status quo is.

In general, people just want to be left alone to live their lives with as minimal hassle from The Power as possible.   But that is increasingly hard in a world full of Midgleys who succeed in a society which rewards spin and obfuscation.  Godin concludes:

We might consider erecting a statue of him in every lobbyist's office (and college campus and public square and government bureau), a reminder to all of us that we're ultimately responsible for what we make, that spinning to defend the status quo hurts all of us, and most of all, that we have to balance the undeniable benefits of progress, innovation and industry with the costs to all concerned. I can't imagine a better person as the symbol for a day that's not about honoring or celebrating, but could be about vigilance, candor and outspokenness instead.

My suggestion: Use this post to contemplate not what they are doing, but to consider how you are defending the status quo.

Why do older Boards have such difficult time with younger Leaders?

Late night phone call from one Executive Director I'm coaching.  At 28, she falls squarely into that 'Millennial' demographic and thus encounters frequent frustrations with her Board who are significantly older than her (I'd say the youngest Board member is in their early 50's).

I won't go into detail about the nature of her relationship with the Board, but it does read like some stereotypical Generation Gap.   The Board, which actually showed itself willing to take a chance on a bright up-and-comer, has since fallen back into a "What's wrong with these kids?" attitude as the Director implemented needed changes to bring fresh air into a nonprofit that had become stale.

Since I was an advisor to the Board during their executive search, I'm familiar with both sides of this story.    As they neared the end of the hiring process, I alerted the Board that the new ED would bring a large cultural shift to operations and that they'd probably see large turnover in staff in addition to a whole different presence in the community.    This has come to pass.

To help prepare the Board for this cultural shift, I shared with them the following perspective of a young Polish writer about how the expectations of young people have been conditioned by their experiences of the Internet.   They bring a vastly different set of skills as well as needs to the job.   If you have young people on your staff and want them to excel, then read on.

NOTE: I've edited out the introduction so as to get directly to the meat of the piece.   

Piotr Czerski - We, the Web Kids

1. We grew up with the Internet and on the Internet. This is what makes us different; this

Piotr Czerski

is what makes the crucial, although surprising from your point of view, difference: we do not ‘surf’ and the internet to us is not a ‘place’ or ‘virtual space’. The Internet to us is not something external to reality but a part of it: an invisible yet constantly present layer intertwined with the physical environment. We do not use the Internet, we live on the Internet and along it. If we were to tell our bildnungsroman to you, the analog, we could say there was a natural Internet aspect to every single experience that has shaped us. We made friends and enemies online, we prepared cribs for tests online, we planned parties and studying sessions online, we fell in love and broke up online.

The Web to us is not a technology which we had to learn and which we managed to get a grip of. The Web is a process, happening continuously and continuously transforming before our eyes; with us and through us. Technologies appear and then dissolve in the peripheries, websites are built, they bloom and then pass away, but the Web continues, because we are the Web; we, communicating with one another in a way that comes naturally to us, more intense and more efficient than ever before in the history of mankind.

Which Comes First, The Money Or The Outcomes?

By the latest IRS figures, there are 1.7 million nonprofits in the U.S. Of that number, 100,000 (6%) take in over 90% of the revenue …with just 3,000 getting 6 out of every 10 dollars. Of the $1.5 Trillion in annual revenues pouring into the nonprofit sector, nearly 70% comes from government and the rest from philanthropy.

Five decades ago, education organizations received just 5% of the philanthropy pie while  religion received 60% with the rest dispersed to a grab bag of other charities. Today, human service charities receive less than 10% of private giving, and education with 15% is now second only to religion at 35%. Of course, much voluntary action and charitable giving in America takes place ‘off the books’ and out of sight. We don’t have a good handle on the size of it all as these tend to be private matters of the American heart.

In his recent book, Charity Case, Dan Pallotta points out that charitable giving in the US has remained virtually flat for four decades amounting to 2% of GDP per annum. Despite the explosion in the number of nonprofits, the emergence of sophisticated fund development offices within these organizations and the endless series of high profile ‘causes’ endlessly flogged by popular culture, we’re still stuck at 2%.

As has been noted by many in the current debate, increasing giving to 2.5% or even 3% would result in a great expansion in the revenue of nonprofit organizations. The question remains if that new money would produce better outcomes. For despite a tidal wave of taxpayer money flooding into human services since the days of LBJ, we’re still stuck with a poverty rate in the 12-15% range. 

So I understand the need to discuss $$$, but let's not lose sight that for the people we serve, it's outcomes.

Nonprofits Should Lower Education Requirements For Some Jobs From "College Degree" to "High School Diploma"?

Guess which line represents student loan debt

America is in the midst of a debt super-cycle.  Whether  we muddle though to a period of expanded economic growth or descend into a disastrous run of debt-deflation coupled with hyper-inflation remains to be seen.   Possibly, as some economists suggest, we're in for two or more decades of anemic economic growth all the while burdened with expanding promises we've made to the retiring Baby Boomers.

But what we know right now is that many nonprofits (as well as certain local government agencies and small businesses) are having an increasing difficult time retaining entry level staff for certain entry level positions.  While some point to low salaries, the primary driver is the enormous debt burdens of young people entering the workforce.

Student Loan debt continues to skyrocket.  In just seven short years from 2005-2012, the average student debt load ballooned 58 percent -- from $17,233 to $27,253.   This is the only category of consumer debt which did not shrink/slow as a result of the financial meltdown of 2008.  The net result is that young adults are starting their careers with a $400 monthly payment or $4800/yr. In rural regions of Pennsylvania, starting salaries can be as low as $24,000, which after taxes means up to 1/4th of take home pay can be consumed by student loan payments.  It won't take a bright young mind long to figure out the need for a different career or even grad school. 

They won't pay off their balance on the salary you can afford

One way for nonprofits to deal with the problem is to reconsider the educational requirements for certain positions.  We know right now about 1/3rd of college grads are working in jobs which do not require a college degree.   What we need to be thinking about is if a lot of the jobs we have even need to require a college degree.   Think of it.  A high school grad with zero debt will be a lot more satisfied with a $24,000/yr salary than a college grad weighted down with massive debt coupled with an inflated sense of their value to your organization.

Integrity....such a quaint concept

As many know, I love to include thinking quizzes in my seminars/workshops.  One format I often use is providing participants with a list of options on a particular subject (i.e.: Most Valuable Brand Names) and have participants try to pick the top three.

One frequently used is 'Personal Qualities Employers Want From Employees'  which includes a selection such as 'Teachability', 'Curiosity', 'Dependability', etc.  Also on this list of choices is 'Integrity', and here is where I'm seeing a large generational divide.

Most research puts Integrity as #1 or #2 among the personal qualities employers want from staff.  When I play this game with Baby Boomers and Generation X, the vast majority put this quality in their top 3.  However, among Millennials 'Integrity' hardly gets a second look.   It happened again yesterday with a group of college students/recent grads.    They split up into teams of 2 and amongst the eight pairings, only two even mentioned Integrity anywhere among their top three.

The explanations went something along this line:  "Employers want to see results and don't particularly care how you get them".  I don't know if this is true of employers or not, but note that this is the way the next generation views the world.  Their deep cynicism about the workplace contains serious implications for the US economy in the coming decades.

The Four Critical Rights Of Board Members

In the past decade I've witnessed at least a dozen nonprofits where the Chairperson or a small cabal are running roughshod over the rest of the Board.  What's more puzzling is that the rest of the Board sits passively and lets this abuse continue.  Not only is that legally problematic, but it wastes the talents of the smart people sitting in the Board room.

Oftentimes I encounter Board members who do not understand they have legal rights and do not have to accept bad behavior.  Among the four critical rights are:

• You have a right to all relevant information needed to perform your duties.  This includes access to all staff and all documents necessary required to make sound judgments  in pursuit of the organization’s mission.

• You have a right to call special meetings.  If need be, file the request in writing.  The Board then has 60 days to hold the special meeting.

• You have the right to bring court action to challenge any behavior which affects your rights.

• You have the right to dissent.  You have the right to have your dissent officially registered in the meeting minutes.  Furthermore, you have the right to submit a written dissent to be attached to the regular meeting minutes or otherwise registered with the Secretary of the Board. (NOTE: You cannot vote in favor of an action then register a dissent.  Also, if you fail to register dissent you may be judged to have concurred in the decision of the Board)  

---

What The Next Generation Leader Will Look Like

We're walking into uncertain times

What type of talent should The Next Generation Executive Director cultivate in current staff?  What should they look for in new hires? The answer is critical to understanding the changes taking place in our current expectation of the Executive Director’s role and what tomorrow's leader should posses.  If you are running a nonprofit, this will impact your  effectiveness, the effectiveness of your organization and ultimately your career. The qualities that an ED values most in their team sets a standard that affects everything from program development, fundraising, collaboration and the long-term success of nonprofit.

Employer surveys over the past four decades document the growing emphasis upon those “soft” skills: communication, dependability, tenacity.  In fact, the transformation is now so complete that basic technical skills requirement no longer rank in the top five of what employers seek.  As one Director explains, “I can teach them what they need to do a good job, but they need those soft skills like persistence in order to do a great job and add real value to this organization.”

There is also data suggesting that priorities in rudimentary job skill requirements are changing in important ways.  In the public, private and nonprofit sectors it is creativity and teachability which dominate over the basic technical competencies in determining success on the job.

Note it doesn’t say administrative skill, passion or even commitment to mission. In the Age of Austerity, this is an interesting shift.  Thus as the economic environment changes, the threat to traditional nonprofit leaders is titanic.  Retrenchment of government budgets, private household debt burdens, the expansion of venture philanthropy, an emerging legal framework for public benefit corporations all represent fundamental core challenges to traditional nonprofits.  Uncertainty is confronting today’s ED, many of who sense a wave of change coming at them and thus generating a concern about the ability of their staff to deal with it.

This is why The Next Generation Executive Director views creativity and teachability as the essential leadership asset that must saturate a nonprofit.

Might As Well Break Your Business Model Before The World Does It For You

The Great Recession has shaken many of the assumptions held by those in charge. Since half of the EDs in America are 55 and older, this means the majority of our leaders cut their management teeth back in the 70s and early 80s, an age which valued basic administrative skill and virtually ignored creative leadership.  When you consider that 40% of human service nonprofits still conduct client intake via pen and paper, you get a sense that even before the recession we were a few decades behind the curve.

It’s not the technical hardware we’re talking about, but the interconnected mindset.  Most nonprofits just use technology to digitize existing systems, sometimes described by management author Tom Peters as ‘paving the cowpaths’. Today the world is massively interconnected — economically, socially, and politically — and operating as a system of systems. For too many Executive Directors, the answer is that their stakeholders are plugged into their individual social networks, but not to the nonprofit. So what does this look like for The New Nonprofit?  

In a networked age of connection and complexity, emerging nonprofit leaders are stressing fresh thinking and continuous innovation at all levels of the organization. The Next Generation Executive Directors are seizing upon innovation as the necessary element for nonprofits get nimble, reinvent themselves and thus remain significant players in the funding and service community.

Kill Your Sacred Cows

So you’re looking for creative talent and innovative thinking.  What does this do for the nonprofit?

• Question your status quo. Most nonprofits have legacy programs that are sacred cows. Often the need to perpetuate the ‘success’ of these efforts stifles creativity within the organization and thus leaving exciting new options open for other nonprofits to advance competing innovations.  The Next Generation Executive Director understands that new revenues will have to come from new sources, and thus be open to disrupt current programs to create mental space for new thinking.

• Rethink your business model. Directors who prioritize creativity as a need in their staff are more likely to pursue innovation by changing their business model. In an age of change, they surround themselves with talent that can think on their feet and move tactically rather than await direction from the laborious traditional strategy/planning sessions so beloved these past few decades.  Strategic Thinking matters more than Strategic Planning.  The Next Generation Executive Director builds staff capacity to favor continuous, rapid-fire shifts and adjustments to their business models.

• Destroy your institutional lethargy. The Next Generation Executive Director will not await certainty…nor near certainty. Nor will they tolerate it in their staff.  Creative leaders will develop a team that fights the bult-in status quo which urges going slow in the name of ‘considering all options’ or ‘waiting for more information’ before making decisions.  Staff must have strong analytical skills to sift through mountains of data and decide what is relevant. These talents drive decision making that is faster, more precise, and even more predictable.  Creating this type of staff environment takes a combination of vision, strategic awareness and intuitive confidence.  It also requires a certain tolerance of failure as innovation brings risk.  However, in an era of rapid change innovation brings far less risk than maintaining the status quo.  

Any questions?

The Next Generation Executive Director must create a culture which is far more transparent and entrepreneurial. The people in the organization must believe that the changing economy is an opportunity, not a threat. The New Nonprofit understands that risk is to be managed, not avoided. The Next Generation Executive Director is one who can build a fluid business model which gives staff the space to innovate and create.

Something significant is happening to the American economy and to the nonprofit sector. In response to powerful external pressures and the opportunities that accompany them, The Next Generation Executive Directors are redefining the job. They are leading the sector in showing to the rest of us that in an age of uncertainty that there is a creative path forward.  There is a new generation emerging. Is that you?

Why Are Nonprofits So Mediocre At Hiring?

Last week had lengthy discussion with a nonprofit manager we'll call 'Cheri' concerning underperformng staff members.   As I dug deeper my thoughts turned from how to improve performance towards a more basic question: "Why did you hire them in the first place?".
 
I'm a big fan of GoDaddy's CEO Bob Parson's thoughts on the subject of hiring. I also adhere to the words of Ken Schiller to Hire Slow, Fire Fast.   In digging deeper with this leader, I found that in practice she was hiring fast, firing slow.  When a position would open up, the pressure to get all clients covered pressured her to get a warm body in place.  However, the personnel policies are so layered with documentation and appeal processes that it could take 6 months to terminate an outright insubordinate employee, let alone one who was just underperformng. 

• Slow It Down.  Take your time.  I recently saw an organization post a job announcement for a deputy program manager.  Post date was February 10.  Application Deadline March 1st.  Start date April 1.    Let's see how that works out for them.
• Bring Other Staff Members Into The Process.   Cultural fit matters. Having others from your staff involved in the screening educates the candidate about the culture of the organization as well as allow the current staff their perspective if the candidate could work with you.  One of the problem staff in Cheri's organization is a woman who came with impeccable credentials and sterling references.  However, in her previous job she basically worked alone.  In Cheri's organization she is part of a team, which quickly revealed her haughty manner and poor interpersonal skills.
• Pay For Quality:  You get what you pay for.  If you find someone you want, be prepared to offer an above market salary.  If you don't, it's more likely that a high performer will eventually be lured away to another employer. I'm monitoring an organization recent hire of a new Executive Director, the hire left a powerful, high profile gig to follow his spouse to town.  I'm guessing his salary is 25-30% of what he made in New York City.  On the job for 1 month I suspect he's continuing to shop his resume. 
• Check References In Depth.  Far too often the reference check is a perfunctory exercise.  Let me show you how to take it deeper.

Defective hiring processes are a major problem in nonprofits.   One bad hire can cause disruptions in the organization as well as eat up resources.   A good rule of thumb is that the cost of replacing an employee equals 30% of the salary for the position.  Thus a bad hire eats up big chunks of dough.  You can't afford the hit to the bottom line, nor the headaches which come from bad hires.

How Workplace Bullies Get Away With It

Seth Godin has an excellent piece about workplace bullying.  Not the physical kind of bullying but the severe conformity placed on many to adapt and adhere to the underlying culture.   While many organizations have lofty statements about 'diversity', only infrequently do they embrace a contrarian, a rabble rouser, a truly different person.  The message is "We have a nice mix of skin colors, genitalia, and  surnames but in your brain you better think like us."

Godin has special contempt for bureaucracies, which by their vary nature enforce a strict control over the actions. thoughts and behaviors of employees. He says

It's easier to keep order in an environment where bullying can thrive (and vice versa), because the very things that permit a few to control the rest also permit bullies to do their work. The bully uses the organization's desire for conformity to his own ends.
 

Ask anyone inside a government bureau, a large university or a gigantic corporation.  These entities were made for bullies for it's a rich environment to exert control.  In essence, bullies get away with it because the system has rigid demands for conformity.  As long as those demands are met, the verbal or psychological abuse is overlooked or de-emphasized.