You’re Really Leading a Mission-Driven Team

Leading non-profits is basically like leading any endeavor, with a slight twist.

Non-profits have missions, the social purpose that qualifies them to be tax-exempt.  What this often means is that team members are attracted by the mission, and motivated by their desire to have a positive impact on society.  The non-profit leader thus must be aware of that motivation as a powerful lever for engaging and retaining people on your team, and propelling the entire team forward.

Compensation at non-profits has risen over the past few decades, as non-profits compete to find the most-qualified people to deliver high-quality services and programs that achieve real results.  Yet it is still difficult for non-profits to meet the compensation packages offered by mid- to large-sized companies.  Therefore there is limited utility in using compensation as a motivational tool.  Thankfully, that's not why people are working at non-profits!  To paraphrase James Carville's 1992 catchphrase, "it's the mission, stupid!"

How do you lead such a team? Some ideas that worked for me:

• Focus on why the organization exists and communicate to all staff the organizational mission.

  

  Photo Credit: h.koppdelaney via Compfight cc

• Articulate a vision for the impact the organization will have.
• Create a strategic plan that lays out the path for achieving the vision.
• Develop 4-5 core overarching goals for the entire organization, and pin some kind of all-staff reward to achieving those overall goals, to show everyone that the entire team is working toward and responsible for the entire organization, not simply their own job or area.
• Cascade the strategic plan goals throughout the organization, down to writing job descriptions that spell out how each individual job will contribute to reaching the overall goals and realizing the vision.
• Coach team members to keep the big picture in mind.
• Foster an organizational culture conducive to staff members taking leadership roles large and small, so they feel even more invested in the success of the organization.
• Acknowledge and celebrate successes, big and small, toward achieving the mission, and communicate those successes to the entire organization.

I will talk more about these and other methods in future posts.  I'm interested, too, in learning about how you motivate your non-profit teams.

One Thing Leaders Need to Stop Doing

In a word:  Micromanaging.

Micromanaging = not delegating = not thinking strategically enough and staying down in the weeds = no vision for team = disrespect for leader by team.

Micromanaging = disrespect for team members.

It's a vicious cycle of disrespect.  And it usually happens because leaders don't make the leap from doing to thinking.  To make that leap, a leader must realize that you are valuable because you think and strategize, not because you produce a tangible product.

So perhaps micromanaging = disrespect for one's leadership abilities and role.

Not Reinventing the Wheel through Complementary Partnerships

Throughout my 30 years in the NYC non-profit world, funders periodically would launch efforts to "reduce duplication of services" and "increase collaboration" among non-profits.  Most fizzled out with limited impact.

I think there are 3 main reasons it failed:

1. There are so many people who need particular services that there can almost never been enough service providers.
2. Some services are best suited to being delivered on a small scale, and you would not find efficiencies or improve effectiveness by merging organizations.
3. People who found non-profits are heavily invested in the idea that they can provide a better service and do it better than whoever is already out there.

This last point also applies to current leadership of non-profits.  Executive Directors, CEOs, Boards of Directors, Presidents, Chairs - all are invested in believing their organization is the best.  If the Board doesn't have confidence in the management, their first inclination is to replace management rather than to find another organization to take over their programs.

The one area where funders did have an impact is in helping organizations resist "mission creep."  This occurs when it becomes clear that an organization's clients need more services than they are currently getting.

Typically, organizations used to develop a new program to meet those needs.  And many still do.  Now they call it "holistic" or "comprehensive" service models.

Another option was one we adopted at City Harvest when I was the Executive Director.  I called it "complementary partnerships" - where City Harvest did what we were best at and we engaged other organizations to provide services they were best at.  Here's what we did.

City Harvest began a Mobile Market, where we distributed free produce to residents of NYC Housing Authority buildings.  The brainchild of Val Traore (now the ED of the Food Bank of South Jersey), the Mobile Market was based on the farmers' market model, where it's possible to bring in a range of sellers and products.  In this case, we decided to bring in a range of services, offered by a variety of providers.  We knew that free food distribution would attract many people.  So what else could we help them with, once they were present?

• Many public housing residents were eligible for food stamps, yet most were not receiving them.  We decided to bring in an organization expert in signing people up for food stamps. They were eager to get access to this audience. 
• We realized that some produce would be unfamiliar to residents, so we brought in a chef funded by Share Our Strength who did demonstrations of recipes using the produce and we passed out recipes.  We also recruited some of our celebrity chefs who were on our Food Council, to do demos. They were eager to use their skills to benefit lower-income New Yorkers. 
• We also realized that residents lacked health care, so brought in community health organizations to do medical screenings and even dental care.  Again, they were eager to have access to a critical mass of people. 
• To get volunteers who would help staff the Mobile Market, we turned to New York Cares, the expert in volunteerism. It was eager to have a project that needed regular volunteers on the weekend.

The idea was to offer way more than we alone could provide, and to find organizations that had a mission-based interest in working with us.  It simply didn't make sense for City Harvest to develop expertise in every area. It would have been "mission creep" and put us in competition with organizations already doing that work - creating conflict, potential ill will, and difficult choices for funders.

Today, the challenge to use dollars wisely continues.  Perhaps complementary partnerships are a way to really collaborate and best serve clients.

Dine Out for No Kid Hungry September 16-21, 2013

Over 8,000 restaurants have signed up to participate in the Dine Out For No Kid Hungry from coast to coast. Now we need your help in making sure that you, your friends, and your family make the event a success by visiting participating restaurants during the month of September, especially during the week of September 16-21.

To start the week with a bang, we’re holding a TwEAT OUT all day on Monday, September 16. Join in the fun and help spread the word about Dine Out For No Kid Hungry on Twitter and Facebook!

Visit http://www.nokidhungry.org/ for details on where to dine in your community.

Hunger relief is a cause near and dear to my heart, particularly since I spent 11 years as Executive Director of City Harvest in New York City.  And ending childhood hunger is key to so much that could happen in our world.

Imagine a world where every child had enough of the right food to eat, from pre-natal to adulthood.  What kind of human potential would be unlocked?

Growing Pains in Becoming a Leader

I noticed growing pains as I transitioned from a do-er to a thinker - otherwise known as a leader.

The growing pains manifested as my frustration that other people weren't stepping up to the plate in terms of

• seeing things that needed to be done and doing them instead of waiting to be asked
• doing things without asking for permission
• thinking through the consequences of their actions
• understanding the impact of their work on other people in the organization
• figuring out how to work with other people
• creating a plan for their work
• owning the organization instead of just their individual silo

and myriad similar ways of relieving me of the pressure of having to always be present to direct, answer questions, solve problems, resolve conflict, strategize, and generally be on top of everything.

I have clients who are experiencing the same frustration, especially with someone they hired early on in their tenure - who just isn't meeting expectations.

I applaud this situation, uncomfortable as it is, because it indicates that the person is stepping into the leadership role with both feet.  I applaud it because the person is finally ready to share the organization, finally ready to let other people do things, finally ready to let go of control of every little thing that goes on.  And I applaud it because the person is now enough of a leader to want more leaders around in the organization.

That person they hired completely met expectations when they joined the organization.  What's changed is the expectations.

I always wanted people to grow, and seek to become leaders. I count many such people among my former colleagues and employees, including a few Executive Directors of non-profits.  Yet there also were those people who either weren't cut out to be leaders or just didn't want that responsibility.

I learned that it is kinder and more beneficial to the organization to help them leave.  I called it managing people out of a job.  It was pretty simple: redefine the expectations of the job, based on the changed organizational and environmental circumstances.  Discuss the new expectations with the person, explaining the rationale and what they now would be called to do.  Wait and see what they want to do.  If someone wanted to grow, I gave them training and support and coaching - that included some tough talk and direct feedback.  If not, they left with their heads held high.  It's not their fault the job changed!

Then I could use the new job description to hire someone who could meet the current job expectations, and assume the leadership responsibilities I needed to share.

My discomfort and frustration was a wonderful sign that I had grown as had my organization.  We were raising more money, delivering more food, helping more people.  With that growth came an increase in staff and a shift in my responsibilities.  It was when my expanded responsibilities conflicted with my old expectations - of myself and my team - that the growing pains emerged to tell me it was time to make a change.

Why Board Member Criticism is Actually Good News...and How to Manage It So You Don't Go Crazy

A client is irritated by the sudden nitpicking of her Board Chair.  After two years of seeking his involvement and being rebuffed and ignored, he suddenly is looking at every document, questioning every detail, and criticizing small mistakes.  She is irritated because he is jumping in at the lowest possible level, and is hurt and angry that he is ignoring the big picture which is that the organization is no longer in hospice care and in fact is coming off life support.  She has saved the place through great management, and now she's being criticized.  It just doesn't seem right to her.

I empathize and sympathize completely.  I'll always remember how early on in my tenure as Executive Director of City Harvest, our Board Chair asked me whether we'd have both white and red wines and sparkling water at our first major donor reception.  My immediate internal reaction was "does he think we've never done anything like this before?" Of course I didn't say that; I answered his question with assurances.  And then answered some more questions about small details, that were to me were obviously going to be addressed with excellence.  All the while, my brain is wondering "why is he asking about all this? Doesn't he know we are professionals who have done this before? Doesn't he trust us?"

Taking that question seriously, I realized later that he didn't trust us.  Not with his reputation, at any rate.  And that meant he had upped his stake in the organization.  The fundraising team prior to my becoming City Harvest's leader had been mediocre at best.  So his experience - and that of all other Board members - was of unmet expectations and good-enough events.  Now, he had some experience with my style of work, which was to aim high and execute with excellence.  However, none of those experiences directly affected him.  They affected the organization's customers and its reputation.

The major donor event was the first time our Board Chair was going to introduce the "new" City Harvest to his friends and colleagues.  His personal reputation was now on the line.  Naturally, he was nervous about whether we really were capable of delivering the kind of quality experience he wanted for his guests.  It meant he was buying into the organization in a way he never had before.  And it also told me that he wanted to ensure that his expectations would be met.  Because "the devil is in the details," that's the level at which he needed reassurance.

Over time, I found that it was how my team and I handled the details that built or undermined Board members' trust in our ability to manage the organization and fulfill the mission.  The better we handled details, the more invested Board members became.  They gave more money, asked more people for money, invited more people to events, spoke proudly of their association with City Harvest, and invited more influential people to join the Board.  When we made a mistake - not sending a thank you fast enough, or spelling someone's name wrong, or having a typo on an invitation - we heard about it loud and clear.  And while it sounded like criticism or nitpicking, the real message was "you guys are too good to make this kind of mistake."  And that's a compliment.  We were doing so much right, all that could be found was tiny things to harp on.

Building on doing the details right created a strong foundation for the organization's growth in 11 years - from serving 33,000 people a week to serving 265,000 people a week, from raising $1.9 million to raising $11+ million a year, from rescuing and delivering 4.5 million pounds of food a year to 25 million pounds of food a year, from picking up 90% baked goods to picking up 67% fresh produce.

I told my client to view her Board Chair's criticism as a compliment. I think she gets that now.

The 90/10 Rule for Board Members: Cut to the Chase in your Communications

Among non-profit leaders, there is a saying:  "Board members seem to check their brains at the door."

This rude statement reflects CEO frustration with the apparent failure of one or more Board members to read the packet of information sent prior to the Board meeting.

Why does the CEO believe that a Board member has not read the packet? When the Board member asks a question at the meeting that the CEO knows is answered in the packet.

My father led two international non-profits and, when I became CEO of a NYC non-profit, told me that I needed always to remember the 80/20 rule - and that it really is the 90/10 rule.  The rule is:

Board members spend 90% of their time on their own business and lives, and 10% on your organization.

He suggested that if I remembered that, I could reduce or even eliminate my frustration with Board members.  I may live and breathe my organization, but it is completely unrealistic for me to expect a Board member to spend even half as much time on the organization.

In fact, he warned, if a Board member does start to spend a lot of time on the organization, I am in trouble.  When Board members start focusing more than 10 or 20% of their attention on a non-profit, it means they have lost confidence in the CEO.

I was delighted then to expect Board members to focus 10% of their time on our organization, and for them to rely more on me to run the organization and tell them what they really needed to know.

Communicating with Board members then is about top-level messages about:

• Successes
• Key decisions that need to be made
• Critical shifts in environment that affect the organization
• Financial status (including fundraising) 
• Key visibility
• Future opportunities or challenges
• How well the organization is fulfilling its mission

If you want to give the Board more details, do it after writing a headline that summarizes the content.  Or let them ask questions at the Board meeting to get more information.  You can always follow up with written details after the meeting, to the one or more Board members who request that information.

EXAMPLE:
Gala Raised $1.2 million, Net of $850K Exceeds Goal; All Board Members Attended.
You can add more detail, such as "Auction raised $250K, Juniors after-party attended by 250 and raised $150K. Great feedback from attendees. May need to move to larger venue next year. Separate Juniors event being planned." 

The one exception to this "top level message only" rule is that CEOs always need to call out by name each Board member who has participated in some way in furthering the organization's work.  This creates a culture of acknowledgement (which always encourages people to do more), as well as peer pressure for Board members to look good in front of the rest of the Board.

What about problems? I didn't list those under what you need to tell Board members about.  That's because I think problems are better discussed in person, at a Board meeting, and preferably after the CEO has already discussed the problem with at least the Board Chair and hopefully the Executive Committee.  Some kind of resolution or approach is needed before the entire Board is informed.  The Executive Committee is entrusted by the full Board with running the governance between meetings, so let them act in that capacity.  If the problem needs to go before the full Board (and some never do), then you want to have a headline that shows how you are solving it with the help of the Executive Committee.

IMPORTANT:  Don't mistake the length of time spent on a report for lack of interest in the organization.  People who agree to be on Boards are interested in the organization, and in being thought well of by their peers.  Also, they are not stupid.  They do understand what you tell them. And if you tell them what they need to know, they will continue to trust you.

CEOs have enough frustration with running a non-profit organization. You don't have to allow unrealistic expectations about Board attention to cause even more.