Policy development is an exercise in dreaming of the ideal.

It involves putting into words the very best standards and values that Board members can imagine for the organisation’s programs, services, administration, procedures and initiatives. The end objective, of course, is to achieve the best possible benefit for members, end-users, staff, community, industry, etc.

Personal values, ie a person’s moral principles and accepted standards, can be difficult to express. Not only is it often difficult to choose the right words, but people in general express their personal values only rarely and may not even be quite sure what they are. Our personal values determine what is acceptable or unacceptable to us.

As a group of individuals, a Board determines the values of the organisation, ie what is acceptable and unacceptable to the organisation.

Personal values are not talked about very often and it is possible that some may feel a little uncomfortable at the prospect of being asked to talk about them with others. However, a person’s words and actions, attitudes and behaviours, opinions and decisions as a Board member will have lasting effects on the organisation, members and end-users.

It is therefore imperative that each Board member clearly understands their own personal values and those of fellow Board members.

Each person needs to respect the other’s right to express their personal values and to understand that behaviour is an expression of values.

There is, therefore, an urgent need for people to know and understand the values they are personally bringing to the task of setting policies and making decisions.

It must be noted that, as Board  members develop policy:

1. the personal values and standards of each Board member will colour organisational policies, both in wording and intent,
2. a person’s values and standards carry the impact and effect of personality, experiences, knowledge, understanding, preferences, beliefs, fears, tensions, aspirations, relationships, confidences, competencies – and more, and
3. people don’t often have the opportunity or need to closely examine their personal values, or gauge the effect of their values on the opportunities and needs of others.

Similarly, as policies are implemented:

1. people will demonstrate their own personal values as they interpret and implement policies,
2. some may feel constrained or confused by the way policies are expressed by the Board, and
3. some may feel offended or threatened by perceived limitations or perceived open-endedness in particular policies.

Therefore, as well as the values of the policy-makers, it is necessary to consider the literal expression of policy statements.  Policies need to be flexible yet not meaningless. They need to be realistic yet not deter initiative or prevent negotiated or calculated risk.  In finalizing any policy, the Board needs to consider the likelihood of their wording being misinterpreted or misunderstood.

It is important for the whole Board, CEO and staff to work through the following group activity.

CEO and senior staff, as ex-officio members, do not have the power to vote or move motions at Board meetings. However, they do have freedom to contribute to discussion and debate, and to influence decisions through their expressed suggestions, opinions and recommendations.

Before commencing the activity, allow sufficient time for each person to read through the Steps and explanations of this Group Activity. This is an activity of great importance and value to any organisation.

Group Activity – Examining Personal Values in Relation to Policy Development

The purpose of this group activity is to enable Board members to examine their personal values in relation to:

• the purpose of the organisation, and
• their responsibilities as Board members to the organisation’s members and end-users.

All Board members, CEO and senior staff should participate in this Group Activity.

The main purpose of the organisation is to provide programs or services for members or end-users. The Board will be involved in:

• employing staff,
• setting standards for the attitudes and behaviour of people involved in all of the organisation’s activities and initiatives, and
• exercising a degree of control over the lives and experiences of staff, members and end-users.

This Activity will focus on:

• exercising a degree of control over the lives and experiences of members or end-users who are the people in whose interest and on whose behalf the organisation exists

For the purpose of this group activity, there are two extremes to this Continuum of Control:

Custodial ────────────── Humanistic

One extreme is ‘Custodial’, defined here as:

‘a rigid, highly controlled setting in which maintenance of order is primary: an atmosphere which is impersonal, cynical and one of watchful mistrust’

This means that members or end-users should do what the organisation requires them to do.

The other extreme is ‘humanistic’, defined here as:

‘a democratic setting with the highest importance placed on the individual, open channels of communication between end-users, Board  and staff, and increasing achievements in end-user self‑determination: an atmosphere that meets end-user needs’

This means that members or end-users are encouraged to do what they are able and choose to do.

The distance between the two extremes in this Continuum of Control indicates the stages of progression from a Custodial attitude and behaviour to a Humanistic attitude and behaviour.  The centre point M indicates a neutral point in terms of the two extremes.

Source and Reference:  Educational Administration – Theory, Research, and Practice – Second Edition  Authors: Wayne K Hoy and Cecil G Miskel – Random House Publication

Step 1              It is most important that the group examines the definitions given for ‘Custodial’ and ‘Humanitarian’ and either accepts or amends them:

1. the group will break into pairs. Each pair will discuss the two definitions and decide whether they agree to accept them as given, or to amend them,
2. at most, 20 minutes should be taken for this discussion, with each pair writing any amendments or comments on their own sheet of butchers’ paper, then reassembling as full group.

Step 2              Open discussion follows.  Each pair is asked to display and speak to their butchers’ paper notes.

Each pair in turn will read out their notes on the two definitions.   Questions will be invited from others as each pair presents their views. If a member of any pair feels s/he would like to add additional or separate comments, this will be encouraged.   It is important to emphasize the need for absence of judgement by any person toward another person’s comments or responses. The purpose here is to understand each other’s personal values, not to judge them.   As discussion continues on the two definitions, any agreed changes to the wording or intent should be noted until agreement is reached.

Step 3              Full group discussion should follow, and may include these points:

1. the concept of ‘control’ – it is possible that some people may be uncomfortable with the degree of ‘control’ over the lives and experiences of members or end-users.
2. it may be felt that ‘custodial’ and ‘humanistic’ are like black and white, ie absolute extremes – however, most people will feel more attuned to one than the other.
3. recent decisions and policies from the Board’s history may be discussed as to whether they reflect ‘custodial’ or ‘humanistic’ values – people will then see proof of how personal values translate into actions.

Custodial decisions will include:

1. decisions which set limits on member or end-user experiences and opportunities,
2. perhaps individual abilities or preferences of members or end-users are seen to be irrelevant in allocating funds for programs and services: or their comfort and access are seen to be of minimal importance in planning building extensions, re-location or dissemination of information via technology.

Humanistic decisions will include:

1. decisions which extend or remove limits to the experiences and opportunities of members or end-users,
2. perhaps allocating funds to encourage them to join in new or different activities, inviting their opinions on options for the annual report layout or upgrading technological equipment or programs to improve communication with and for members or end-users.

Complete this open discussion and make sure that any agreed actions and re-actions are noted for further discussion by the Board.

Step 4              It is unlikely that any person will give equal value to both custodial and humanistic principles as there is no similarity in their nature or application. Yet, where a custodial decision may be in the best interests of a particular member or end-user at a particular time, that decision can be based on humanistic principles.

For example, if the disadvantage of a member or end-user is severe and no appropriate service is provided, the immediate decision may be to exclude the person, ie a custodial decision. However, if a further decision is made by the Board to allocate funds to commence such a service, both decisions display humanistic principles. The restriction on the person is only temporary. Others with similar disadvantages will also benefit in the longer term through this second decision.

Step 5              It now requires each person to place a cross (x) on the continuum at the point s/he feels indicates her or his personal comfort with regard to ‘exercising a degree of control over the lives and experiences of members or end-users’

Custodial – A     B     C     D    M    E     F     G     H – Humanistic

A = closest to Custodial

H = closest to Humanistic

M = mid-way point – with equal value for Custodial and Humanistic – or uncertainty about either or both.

Each person should indicate their place of comfort at the appropriate mark along the continuum. Note that a mark at M is saying nothing.  It would indicate that a person has not identified their values in respect of control, and can therefore be expected to separately and perhaps differently approach each decision in which control over members or end-users is an issue.

Such a person may look to other factors such as convenience, cost or personal experience on which to base such decisions.

Step 6              The comfort ‘spread’ of all members (from the point closest to Custodial and to Humanistic is now marked on one continuum.  This becomes the ‘master’ or group continuum and it is now possible to examine:

1. the distance between the point closest to each extreme, and
2. the distance between these two points, ie the spread of comfort representing the group value of participants.

Where the ‘comfort spread’ is broad and includes M, that Board will almost certainly result in conflict in decision-making and policy development as to which principle (Custodial or Humanistic) to follow relating to the nature and degree of member or end-user control.

However, after this activity, people will know and understand the reason for such conflict and should be more objective in their negotiations toward agreement.

Where the ‘comfort spread’ is narrow and sits between M and Humanistic, the spread of values or comfort leans totally toward Humanistic.

Such a spread as this will almost certainly result in minimal conflict in decision-making and policy development as to which principle to follow relating to the nature of member or end-user control or perceived control.

Any conflict is likely to be about the extent, eg how to choose a small group of members or end-users to benefit from a new activity due to the lack of funds and how soon the Board can locate or generate sufficient funds to enable all members or end-users to benefit from the new activity.   Alternatively, if the spread was totally leaning toward Custodial, new activities would probably be low on the Board’s list of funding priorities. Conflict would more likely arise in such a Board on issues not directly associated with control over members or end-users: perhaps issues relating to staff and Board  demarcation, the state of the buildings or use of company vehicles!

Step 7              The full group will now consider the effect of values imposed by external forces, eg government policies, legislation, funding sources, community expectations, etc.

Principles such as non-discrimination, in-home support, empowerment, member or end-user rights and entitlements, added value, service quality and cost-effectiveness in terms of member or end-user benefits all favour the Humanistic principle and actively discourage the Custodial principle.

Open discussion at this point should focus on:

1. how much people know or don’t know about imposed values,
2. how they feel about imposed values, and
3. whether the group thinks there should be more time given to examining imposed values.

Some ideas may follow this discussion on how the group might give more time to examine imposed values, once they are sure that real benefits would follow for themselves as decision-makers and for members or end-users.

Boards have very little choice with values imposed by external authorities or agencies, particularly if the external authority or agency is providing funds or subsidies, or has substantial influence.

Step 8              The final step in this activity requires the Board to break into small groups of three, with each person working with other than their pair from Step 1.

The task is to discuss the need or desirability for the Board to:

1. work together toward moving the spread of comfort further into the Humanistic zone and out of Custodial altogether; or
2. work together toward moving the spread of comfort further into the Humanistic zone; or
3. work together toward retaining the spread of comfort in the Humanistic zone; and perhaps
4. reducing the spread of comfort so that the distance between personal values will be lessened.

The challenge for Boards is to ensure that decreasing resources, increasing member or end-user needs/opportunities and increasing government, industry or community expectations do not result in an automatic or defensive move to inappropriate custodial or humanistic values.

Some nonprofit organisations start their search for funds by selecting a variety of funding sources – rather than by needs-based planning.

Stage 1:           Conception – the planning stage where you clarify the desired outcome

Why this?  You have to know exactly what you intend to do with the funds you are applying for, which means you need to start with a project plan complete with budget.  This includes evidence of the need, problem or opportunity to be addressed, and your confidence in the outcome to be achieved.  The more confident you are in your project plan and budget, the more positive, powerful and persuasive your grant application can be;

Why now?  You have to explain the ‘return on investment’ to the funding source in deciding to allocate their scarce funds to your project.  This needs to be explained in clear and concise language that is:

1. meaningful to them,
2. meets their eligibility and assessment criteria,
3. complies with their specifications, and
4. re-assures them that your organisation is confident and sufficiently competent to achieve the stated outcome; and

Why us?  You have to justify why your organisation is their best choice to address the need, problem or opportunity at this time – and to achieve the stated outcome.  This includes:

1. proving either that what is currently offered to address the stated need, problem or opportunity is not adequate, available or appropriate for your customers, consumers, end-users or target group, or
2. that there is no such service available at this time.

In my free e-book, Jean’s Service Delivery for Commercial and Nonprofit Service-Providers, you’ll find the following procedure on page 8.  This procedure is presented to show that the starting point for grant applications or submissions is delivering quality services – not on how much money you think you can gain from a wide range of funding sources.

Stage 2:      Birth – choosing the best way to achieve the desired outcome

Service-providers need to have consistent methods and systematic procedures for these five sequential steps:

1. Collecting statistical information on the nature and extent of need that can be addressed through a specific funding source about:

• currently met and unmet needs, and
• predictable and projected future needs.

2. Analysing the statistical information to quantify and understand how best to respond to this research by designing, implementing and evaluating quality services:

• for the immediate (now to 6 months) and short-term future (6 to 12 months), and
• or the longer-term future (12 to 24 months).

3. Designing services that address the identified and prioritised needs within available resources:

• following a consistent and replicable service model that covers and embraces the planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and review of service delivery,
• tailoring services to the individual needs of service-users or compatible groups of service-user, and
• harnessing resources outside of the organisation through service networks, strategic alliances or partnerships that enrich the quality of service delivery and consequently of service-user outcomes and benefits,

4. Allocating adequate and appropriate organisational resources to the major stages of the Service Model, ie planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluation and review, and

5. Treating the Service Model as the core business of your organisation, regardless of the funding source.

Stage 3:           Growth – visualizing your project plan, schedule and budget in action

Now use Jean’s e-book – pages 10-14 to find the secret of identifying Measurable Consumer Outcomes (p14) and the financial aspects of delivering quality services (p10-13).

Important definitions:

1. Measurable consumer outcome – correction of a gap between a current and desired/achievable situation in the life or lifestyle of a consumer:  note that ‘desired’ is governed by the consumer, and ‘achievable’ is governed by the nature and extent of available resources
2. Activity            a planned series of actions or events designed to achieve a measurable outcome
3. Outcome         something that follows from an action or situation: a result: a consequence
4. Consumer        the person or group whose life or lifestyle will be improved or enhanced as a result of the planned activity
5. Measure           a basis or standard for comparison: a particular action intended to achieve a recognisable effect
6. Measurable     able to be measured: perceived or significant

The initial step in identifying, planning and achieving a measurable consumer outcome begins with the desired outcome being negotiated between the consumer and staff member.  The process involves three major steps:

1. assessment of the current situation,
2. agreement about the desired improvement or enhancement, and
3. planning of an acceptable, achievable and affordable activity that will achieve the desired improvement or enhancement.

There are a number of variables in this process, which can affect the process:

1. readiness and willingness of the consumer,
2. agreement on an acceptable, achievable and affordable outcome,
3. availability of adequate and appropriate resources,
4. suitable measurement tool or process, and
5. suitable evaluation model. 

Much of the suspicion about measurable consumer outcomes has evolved due to inadequate preliminary analysis to ensure that the outcome is acceptable, appropriate and achievable to both the consumer and staff member, and affordable within the resources available for the activity.

Stage 4:           Maturity – due to your detailed knowledge and understanding of your project.

You will have worked through the stages of Conception, Birth and Growth – and reached this stage of Maturity to prepare a positive, powerful and persuasive response in the relevant grant or submission application.

Now use Jean’s e-book and find Pages 46-49 for guidance on completing your grant or submission application form - just email jean@jeanroberts.com.au for your free PDF of this e-book.

Summary:

It is vital to start your planning by:

1.  gathering evidence of service-user/consumer needs – quality of research;
2. designing one or more project plans, schedules and budgets - quality of design; and
3. finalising your evaluation method and tool – quality of conformance.

THEN look for suitable funding sources for each project plan,

THEN obtain the relevant submission guidelines and specifications –

THEN prepare and submit your submission/grant application.

Examples include categorizing people by birthdate, culture, religion, home address, education, age, sex, income, living standard and employment.   This practice is rampant among people in positions of power, authority or influence.

Let’s explore this practice!

• Joseph Mayo, an early writer about personal values, claimed that our values are established by the age of seven years.  He went on to suggest that to begin to understand any person, think about where they might have been living up to the age of seven – and then think about what was going on around them locally, socially, economically, culturally, nationally and globally during those seven years.  You will then have a fair idea of their personal values that influence attitudes and behaviours.

• Mayo Clinic Health Information, accessible on their website, offers an article Workplace generation gap: understanding differences among colleagues (Mayo Clinic Staff, July 6^th 2005).  This article states that ‘people of today’s workplace generations possess characteristics that derive, in large part, from the political, social and economic climate of their youth’.

They explain anticipated behaviours of each generation, and offer suggestions on how to work with our own and other generations, together with this caution:

                                ‘Be wary of stereotyping: not all traits apply to all members of a generation’

Their point is well made.  My birth in Melbourne, Australia, in 1934 found me starting life in the reality and then aftermath of the Great Depression – and in the build-up to World War ll.   But not all people of my age will talk, think or act exactly like me!   My first seven years were spent in a very different political, social and economic climate than those of people born before or later than me.   It is wise, therefore, to expect my attitudes, values and behaviours to differ from theirs.    It is equally wise to spend time and energy in getting to know and understand people of our own and other generations and backgrounds – remembering that each person is unique and deserves to be valued.

Individuals are not simply re-active entities who can be relied upon to act and re-act due to their generation, culture, religion, suburban or rural home address, level of education, sex, level of income, living standard or type of employment.   

People in positions of power, authority or influence need to move from generalizations that are convenient to them toward acknowledging the importance and uniqueness of individuality.

Advice from the Mayo Clinic Staff is to:  ‘Be aware of the differences, appreciate the strengths, and manage the differences effectively.’

Sounds appropriate advice for people in positions of power, authority or influence, don’t you think?

Let’s consider two theoretical frameworks to guide us – and people in positions of power, authority or influence – to some level of wisdom:

1.     Behaviour is the interaction between the role in the organisation or unit (defined by expectations), and personality.  The role expectations may be the same, but each person will bring their unique personality, personal values and previous experience to their role. 

Explanation – Behaviour has little to do with labels.  Behaviour in any situation is heavily influenced by personality, previous experiences, level of comfort and confidence – and most importantly by the manner in which role expectations are explained (or not explained) and supported (or not supported) by working or living conditions.

Behave is defined as to act or function in a specified or usual way, or to conduct oneself properly or as desired.

Behaviour is defined as the manner of behaving, or the response of an organism to a stimulus.

These definitions imply that there is acceptable or desirable behaviour and there is unacceptable and undesirable behaviour, and that acceptability or desirability is determined by:

• one’s own expectation or requirement of oneself,
• another party’s expectation or requirement of oneself,
• a stimulus (defined as ‘something that stimulates or acts as an incentive’), and
• a set of normal or specified circumstances.

People whose behaviour is seen to be unacceptable or undesirable, or likely to become so, are often treated by others as problem people: their behaviour is seen to be a likely cause of or contributor to a potentially unacceptable set of circumstances.

There are people who want – or need – to control a particular process, activity or result:  there are others who need to be in control to ensure that they, and not others, receive the plaudits or credits.

2.     Job satisfaction is the interaction between the demands of the role in the organisation or unit and the needs of the individual.

Explanation – the ‘needs of the individual’ includes being genuinely valued and respected, being able to make a valued contribution and receiving an appropriate reimbursement for effort, ability and skill in a safe and secure work environment.   The ‘demands of the role in the organisation’ should be expressed in the role description, and in workplace policies and procedures, work practices, performance measures and organisational objectives.

It is possible to enhance and increase each person’s job satisfaction in relation to:

• tasks – including procedures,
• working relationships – including teamwork, and
• actual work environment – including the physical work location and work station.

Where the level of job satisfaction is increased or enhanced, the quality of contribution and level of confidence are also increased or enhanced. 

Where the level of job satisfaction is reduced, morale and personal and professional credibility are also reduced.

Job satisfaction can only be recognised and measured by the individual concerned, never by the organisation.

People as individuals are empowered when they know and feel that they are recognised and respected for what they are – unique individuals.  Each person needs to know that their values, attitudes, behaviours, interests and dreams are recognised and respected.

In any community or workplace – however large or small – each person brings with them:

• immediate relationships (immediate and extended family, those they live and love with – now and through their lives; those with whom they share and have shared important aspects of their lives),
• present and past experiences (workplace, personal, social, economic, spiritual, educational, physical, emotional, intellectual, cultural experiences),
• formal and informal learning (qualifications, courses, workshops, self-paced learning, reading, studies they have earned or attended), and
• personal and community networks and linkages (individuals, groups and organisations with whom they are already involved and through which their lives are enriched).

This article is based on the ‘People’ chapter in my 2007 book, Riding the Waves of Community Development in Australia – since the 1970s:  email jean@jeanroberts.com.au for your free PDF.

Tensions and traumas lie in wait for unsuspecting Board office-bearers and members.  They can erupt after a period of unnerving rumbling, simmer beneath politeness, and manifest at times of high stress as well as times that are apparently stress-free.  

Invitations to join a Board (or Committee) are often expressed in terms of:

• We need someone like you,
• Only one night a month for one to one and a half hours,
• We’re a good Board – no problems.

 Pressure to accept a nomination for President, Chairperson, Secretary or Treasurer can include:

• If we don’t have a president, we will have to fold,
• We’ll all support you,
• You are the obvious choice, with your background.

Tensions and Traumas can be summarised under two headings:

1. Personal/personality issues, and
2. Organisational lacks and gaps.

These are followed by two examples of Triumphs.  

There is nothing surprising or unusual about these issues.  A wise Board will anticipate, discuss and agree on how to recognize the signs. 

Examples of Personal/Personality Issues:

1. Apparent conflict of interest by a key person who shows no signs of admitting or even being aware of it
2. Board chairing style, which may not be acceptable to all Board members
3. Cultural miss-fits
4. Difference between what some say and what they do – and how they do it
5. External jargon being introduced or imposed upon the Board
6. Inappropriate business methods being introduced or imposed, eg public sector performance appraisal procedures introduced by the Board, when there is no internal career structure nor possibilities for promotion
7. Individuals assuming that their own experience or opinion should be the rule – whether or not these are in the best interests of the entity
8. Individual Board members assuming a level of authority greater than any other Board member
9. Lack of financial knowledge, let alone skill
10. Minority views being undervalued or even disallowed
11. Misinterpretations taken as criticism
12. Personality clashes
13. Private agendas and motivations
14. Sexism and ageism
15. Social, political, geographic, cultural, etc, groups or caucusing
16. Treasurer keeping the financial details from other Board members

Examples of Organisational Lacks and Gaps:

1. Automatic endorsement for next term of office
2. Ignoring the Rules and Statement of Purpose (Constitution), and current strategic priorities
3. Individual Board members given responsibilities for which they are ill-equipped – or are unlikely to have sufficient time available – to handle effectively or efficiently
4. Insufficient or out-of date policies and procedures – or worse still, none at all
5. No consistent decision-making procedure, nor consistency in the quality of decisions
6. No definition to guide the issue of Confidentiality
7. No direction given by the Board as to the structure, format and circulation of Board minutes
8. No Induction and Orientation procedure for new Board members or new Board office-bearers
9. No procedure for Board performance appraisal, and therefore no annual Board development plan
10. No procedure for the Board to monitor external issues that can dictate internal actions and decisions
11. No procedure to ensure that all external relationships have real potential of adding value to the legal entity
12. Precedence is the only criteria for decision-making
13. Preference given at Board meetings to operational matters, resulting in lack of attention being given to the three major components of governance:
    1. endorsing the strategic and policy framework,
    2. ensuring financial viability of the legal entity, and
    3. ensuring compliance with the legislative, statutory and contractual duties and obligations.

Examples of Triumphs:

Two examples are offered to guide a Pro-active Board:

1. A Board-endorsed checklist for new or intending Board members, and
2. A board-endorsed checklist for a new or intending CEO in a Nonprofit Organisation

A Board-endorsed checklist for new or intending Board or Committee members:

There are some key questions to ask before accepting or offering nomination to the governing body of a nonprofit organisation – and this checklist is a start.   These questions relate to ten basic strategies which, if introduced and operating effectively, could improve your chances of becoming an effective Board or Committee member within a short space of time.

When speaking to a Board Member or the Senior Staff Person about potential Board membership, ask (in your own words) for evidence that these ten basic strategies are alive and well at Board-level:

1. Acceptance of the fact that the organisation is in the business of providing programs or services for a specific client or member base, or to address specific needs
2. Acceptance of the fact that the organisation’s survival depends upon financial viability and operational  effectiveness
3. Pro-active approach to the nature and predictability of risk
4. Consistent and effective internal decision-making procedure
5. Effective working relationship between the Board and CEO/senior staff position
6. Clear statement of delegation of authority to the CEO or senior paid staff member regarding management of the affairs and activities of the organisation
7. Development of strategic and business plans based on a factual analysis of financial and operational obligations, opportunities and challenges… with realistic and achievable budget estimates and cashflow projections as a basis for a set of agreed financial and operational performance indicators
8. Effective networking at Board or Committee – as well as CEO – levels
9. Internal recognition of staff and volunteer achievement and effort - taking time to celebrate achievement and effort
10. Long-term succession strategy in place for Board or Committee office-bearers, members, CEO and key staff

A Board-endorsed checklist for new or intending CEO:

There are some key questions to ask before accepting or offering the position of CEO – and this checklist is a start.    These questions relate to ten basic strategies which, if operating effectively, could improve your chances of becoming an effective CEO within a short space of time – or selecting an appropriate candidate for the position.

If a candidate, ask (in your own words) for evidence that the organisation operates in accordance with the following checklist to support your induction, orientation and performance:

or

If recruiting, ask (in your own words) whether your organisation operates in accordance with the following checklist to support the selected candidate:

1. A clear statement of delegation of authority to the CEO, Manager or Coordinator position, setting out specific details of – and limits to – several categories of authority delegated to the position
2. Acceptance of the fact that the organisation’s survival depends upon financial viability and operational  effectiveness
3. Acceptance of the fact that the organisation is in the business of providing programs or services for a specific client or member base, or to address specific needs
4. Clear and achievable position description
5. Clear basis for an effective working relationship between the Board and CEO/senior staff position
6. Consistent and effective internal decision-making procedure
7. contract of employment, clearly identifying the specific and appropriate Award or Agreement, with terms and conditions of employment clearly stated
8. Development of strategic and business plans based on a factual analysis of financial and operational obligations, opportunities and challenges… with realistic and achievable budget estimates and cashflow projections as a basis for a set of agreed financial and operational performance indicators
9. Effective networking possibilities and opportunities relevant to the CEO, Manager or Coordinator position
10. Legislative, funding/service and contractual obligations and requirements under which the organization is required to operate
11. Long-term succession strategy in place for Board or Committee office-bearers, members, CEO and key staff
12. Performance appraisal procedure for both the organisation and the CEO, Manager or Coordinator position,
13. Performance indicators and measures appropriate to the CEO, Manager or Coordinator position, and
14. Pro-active approach to the nature and predictability of risk.

Email Jean for a free PDF of her Governance Kits:

No. 1 – clarifying the role and responsibilities of a nonprofit board, with four options for board self-appraisal

No. 2 – partnership relationships

No. 3 – personal responsibilities of individual board members

In planning to establish a new Nonprofit Organisation or Small/Medium Enterprise, one of the first tasks is to identify goals and objectives for the new entity.

Such goals and objectives are usually expressed in positive terms as to:

1. desired outcomes or results,
2. target clients, customers, market segment/s,
3. geographic locations or reach, and
4. long-term viability.

As time progresses, an organisational structure will follow the legal and financial aspects of ‘start-up’, establishment, incorporation or registration – followed by recruitment of Board members, staff, advisors and a variety of stakeholders.

This article addresses the added requirement of a Survival Plan as the SME or Nonprofit enters the establishment – followed by growth – stages.

This recommended Survival Protection Plan has two essential components:

1.  Taking control, and
2. Applying the ‘art’ and ‘science’ of monitoring.

Firstly – taking control

• Take control – know your key driver

SMEs are profit-driven: SMEs exist to sell goods and services at a price that in turn generates a profit that can be invested into the running of the business, provide a return on their investment to the owners or shareholders.  Scarce resources must be invested (not spent) to ensure a return that will benefit the profitability of the SME.

Nonprofits are mission-driven: Nonprofits exist to address or achieve a stated purpose or mission and rely on generating income through government grants and subsidies, philanthropic grants, corporate sponsorship, ‘in-kind’ as well as financial donations, bequests and various other strategies to attract direct and indirect giving.  Scarce resources must be invested (not spent) to ensure the viability of the Nonprofit – both as a legal entity, and as a contracted service provider.

• Take control – be committed to your bottom line

The ‘bottom line’ is the consistent determining factor in all decision-making.  Each SME and Nonprofit should identify their bottom line, and then ensure that all available resources are invested in addressing, achieving and improving their  bottom line’.

The bottom line is closely aligned with your ‘core business’ which should be your uniqueness, ie what your organisation must do – whether a Nonprofit or SME.   Organisational performance indicators and measures demonstrate how adherence and commitment to your core business are recognized and how effectiveness and efficiency are to be measured.

•  Take control – create your own Survival Protection Plan by ‘monitoring’

The starting point is to define ‘monitor’, and then to apply both the ‘art’ and ‘science’ of monitoring.

A monitor is a person, procedure or piece of equipment that warns, checks, controls or keeps a continuous record of something.

To monitor involves the act of observing or recording the activity or performance of a piece of equipment, a specific procedure, or a person or group.

Secondly – applying the ‘art’ and ‘science’ of Monitoring

The art of monitoring involves working out the most effective and efficient method or process of observing or recording the activity or performance of a piece of equipment, a specific procedure, or a person or group.

The science of monitoring is understanding and appreciating the practical implications of the (i) purpose, (ii) context and (iii) focus of monitoring.   Only with such understanding comes the ability to:

1. monitor and measure process and progress,
2. determine effectiveness and efficiency in an objective manner,
3. identify necessary remedial action,
4. consider options for improvements or expansion, or
5. allocate or re-allocate available resources.

Monitoring the bottom line

In a nonprofit organisation, the ‘bottom line’ is the consistent quality of services, activities and functions which address or achieve the purpose for which the organisation exists.

In a commercial entity, it is the last line of a financial statement that shows the net profit or loss of the company.

In both cases, the bottom-line must be uppermost in the minds of decision-makers on a day-to-day basis.

The question to ask continuously:      ‘To what extent is what I am doing – or planning to do – contributing to an improvement or enhancement in my organisation/entity’s bottom-line?’

If your immediate task seems unlikely to be directly connected to the bottom line, take time to consider:

• perhaps your task is 3 or 4 steps back from the client, customer, service-user or external stakeholder,
• perhaps your task is supporting the effort or performance of a person who is closer to the client, customer, service-user or external stakeholder,
• perhaps your task is contributing to policy development, which in turn will guide others who are close or closer to the client, customer, service-user or external stakeholder.

Whatever you are doing, try to connect your task – as well as your performance – with the bottom line.  If there is no connection, perhaps the task needs to be re-considered or re-worked.

Monitoring activity requires four key owner/manager or board responsibilities:

1. Ensuring that every person within the nonprofit organisation or commercial entity knows and understands the bottom-line – and how their responsibilities relate to the bottom-line: this includes orientation and induction of new people, and internal annual staff development programs,
2. Ensuring that each person with supervisory or management responsibilities knows and understands how and why this is an essential aspect of their role,
3. Inclusion in internal performance management/appraisal procedures as a critical success factor in risk management and continuous quality improvement, and
4. Adequate and appropriate resourcing of all monitoring activity.

 Monitoring Survival

The most important point relating to survival is that it is an organisational responsibility – requiring senior-level attention to the management of and respect for time and task.

Firstly – time:

It’s a common cry that time seems to be ‘going faster each year’.  But in actual fact, there are still 60 minutes in each hour and 24 hours in each day.  SMEs and Nonprofits need to become more time-conscious and to see time as an ally rather than the enemy.  People at every level within the entity should be constantly reminded of strategies to assist with time and task management – some examples follow:

• make time to reflect on your day without judging yourself or others,
•  plan your time realistically – if your work involves interruptions, then accept them: but set time-limits according to the urgency and importance of each interruption,
•  take time to revitalise yourself as you work –  a two-minute stretch, read a ‘thought for the day’, three-minutes to tidy your work-space, a seven-minute walk up and down a nearby staircase, and perhaps tuck into that chocolate bar as you work,
•  if you are caught in traffic, check your watch and measure the ‘actual’ time it takes to get going again: you may be surprised!
•  break major tasks down into manageable units of time, and then work through these one at a time: you’ll experience a greater sense of accomplishment this way, and
•  make your mobile phone work for you, not against you: check your phone arrangements and availability, as it’s highly likely you’ve made yourself a slave to this piece of technology.

Secondly – task:

‘Task’ is a term we don’t usually use in our day-to-day work, yet it is useful to think of your work activities as ‘major tasks that are composed of small units of work’.    When planning your work, try scheduling the units of work rather than a major task.

For example, ‘writing a report’ consists of separate units of work such as (not necessarily in this order):

• listing and gathering – the information you need,
• finalising deadlines,
• finalising the final report format,
• sourcing additional information,
• identifying options for recommendation,
• exploring the implications for each option,
• assessing risk,
• undertaking a cost/benefit analysis,
• preparing the first draft,
• integrating feedback on first draft,
• finalising the final document, and
• submitting the report.

Ensuring survival is easier when you have a current and achievable position description, and when you know the nature and extent of authority delegated to your position.     Managers, Supervisors and Team Leaders need to ensure that the people they are responsible for have this information.

Similarly with Board or Committee members – they need to know what is expected of them, particularly in relation to their authority.  It is wise for every Board/Committee  to make sure that their CEO (or senior paid staff person) has a Statement of Delegation of Authority setting out what authority the CEO has, and what authority has been retained by the Committee/Board.

Monitoring Action required

1. Ensure that time and task analysis are key components in the culture and practice of your business or organisation, and are treated as critical success factors, and
2. Ensure that every meeting has:

• the right people in attendance who have completed the necessary preparation, with
• the necessary information, energy and time to make considered judgements and wise decisions.

1.    the current situation, including:

• the nature and level of support currently available to the role, and to the person in that role,
• reason for the position becoming vacant, and
• the manner in which the current Chairperson has fulfilled the role.

2.   your desired situation, including:

• nature and level of support you would expect for the role, and for yourself in that role,
• time you would be prepared or able to give to the role,
• tasks you would perform (a) with ease (b) with a degree of difficulty or challenge, and (c) for which you would need additional skill or expertise in the role, and
• changes you would like to make to, or through, the role of Chairperson during your term of office.

3.   what you need to do prior to accepting the role of Chairperson in order to:

• ensure a smooth transition,
• achieve an acceptable level of effectiveness as soon as possible, and
• introduce or work toward your desired situation in the role.

Cautions:   

1. You should not see the previous Chairperson as necessarily the ‘model’ to follow.
2. Before accepting the position, spend time to identify your reasons for nominating or accepting nomination to the position,
3. Identify the practical benefits you will have the confidence, competencies and comfort to emphasise, introduce or maintain for the Board as the governing body, and for the Organisation as a legal entity – during, or resulting from, your term as Chairperson, and
4. Be assured there will be surprises for you after becoming Chairperson.

If you find yourself a prospective immediate past Chairperson, make an objective assessment of:

1.   whether you wish to remain on the Board, and in what capacity,

2.   your desired situation (if you wish to remain), including:

• how you plan to move from the role of Chairperson into the next role or position, and
• whether you wish to perform an active or passive role, and over what period of time,

3.   nature and extent of support you would be willing to offer to the new Chairperson, should that person be willing to accept same, and

4.   time you wish to make available to the organisation.

Cautions:

1. You will always be seen and treated as the ‘Previous Chairperson’,
2. If you stay on the Board, expectations of your performance as a Board member after being ‘in the Chair’ will be higher than that of your peers,
3. Your achievements and performance as Chairperson are likely to be compared with those of your replacement, and
4. You must ensure that your words, actions, behaviour and decisions do not, in any way, hinder the achievements and performance of your successor.

Always remember:

•  How you move from Chairperson to your next role is entirely up to yourself – whether your next role is within the organisation or in some other area of interest.
• Your commitment must always be to the organisation as a whole, not just to the role of Chairperson.

Initially concentrating on organisational policies and procedures, I soon realised that these can produce very few positive results – until and unless human factors are also taken into account.  Left and right-brain orientation has been an effective and beneficial tool in my organisational consultancies and training programs, and in my work with men and women in career planning and improving business and personal relationships.

Understanding and respecting the reasons for particular actions and re-actions contributes to resolving many of the problems inherent in employing staff, building teams, allocating responsibilities and achieving desired results.  Understanding and predicting human behaviour in a specific environment plays a key role in creating effective business and workplace relationships.

In a small business, there may be only 1 machinist, 1 salesperson, 1 storeperson, 1 driver, 1 packer, 1 typist, 1 estimator, 1 production worker, or 1 draftsperson.  Or there may be just three people who are each required to cover three or four specialist roles with ease and confidence.

In a small nonprofit organisation, roles that would be undertaken by teams of people in a large nonprofit are shared among voluntary committee members and perhaps two or three paid staff – some whom may even be part-time.

Each person in these situations needs to be working at 110% productivity and capacity in order to keep the business or the organisation viable – and the people motivated.

In the following case study, you will see the benefit of considering left- and right-brain orientation on two levels – for each person (individually), and as a team (collectively).

Staff in this small business consisted of the owner/manager, storeperson, purchasing officer and three salespeople.  The owner/manager looked after the business methods, customer relations and sourcing suppliers.  All knew each other well, and knew also that they depended on each other to get their job done each day.

But there was a problem, and it was Sam.  Although very capable, he often displayed a prickly behaviour, was quick to cut his co-workers down to size, criticising them and their work.

His desk faced into a brick wall, with his back to his co-workers and the office activity.  His desk fitted between two large filing cabinets.  He worked most of the day in this enclosed space on charts and plans, with minimal customer contact by telephone.

Sam’s weight had become a problem for him.  He was becoming depressed and his appearance was drab to say the least.  Although the quality of his work was acceptable, the effect of his moods and behaviour was causing discontent and concern in this small team.

Following a staff discussion about the values and characteristics of left- and right-brain orientation, Sam was able to appreciate, understand and accept his natural style and those of his co-workers.  In particular, he could appreciate the different styles of thinking, feeling, conversing, relat­ing among the staff – and the importance of the workplace environment.  He now had a framework within which to objectively view his own values and behaviour: and the reactions to his values and behaviour from co-workers, family and friends.

As a right brain dominant person, he could see that he needed to:

1. turn his work station around so that he could see his co-workers and feel part of the total work-group,
2. introduce some bright colours and patterns into his clothing and work environment,
3. restructure his customer contact as a balance to his isolated drawing board tasks, and
4. allow himself time and space to appreciate the behaviours that were so natural to him, and practice some that were not.

In short, he created a work environment that supported his orientation and enabled him to contribute his strengths to the group.

In the family, he had been brought up to believe that his natural beha­viour was mischievous and noisy and that his mind was scatty and uncon­trolled.  He had been told constantly that he was a non-achiever because he couldn’t concentrate on anything long enough to see it through to completion.

The satisfaction for Sam, as he grew more confident in his orientation, was his ability to equally appreciate the natural styles of his co-workers.  He understood and accepted the values and behaviour of left-brain dominant people for the first time as being different but equal.  He began to relate warmly to both left- and right-brain dominant people.

Sam turned from being the company’s complainer, divider and critic to being the company’s carer and nurturer.  Together with some of his co-workers, he requested and was given new responsibilities in line with his orientation.   The work environment became collaborative and focused.  Job satisfac­tion and productivity lifted remarkably.

An introduction to left- and right-brain orientation

Activity at every level of every business and nonprofit organisation consists of planning, implementing and evaluating one or a number of individual tasks or situations:  some will be of major significance and many will be routine or of relative insignificance.  Yet it is predictable that each task or situation will consist of three major components:

             1.         the task itself

- ie: what needs to be done, why, how, when, where, at what cost

            2.         the person or persons involved with or affected by the task

- ie: who, who for, by whom, who else, together with their needs, interests and aspirations

            3.         the environment within which the task is to be accomplished or achieved

- ie: the broad environment, eg political, cultural, social, economic, geographic: or the immediate environment, eg organisational issues, buildings, equipment, facilities, physical comfort

A left- and right-brain business is deemed to be a business that includes orientation as an analytical tool, one which values relationships, and allocates time and energy to make each relationship as effective as possible in order to increase and enhance the performance of the business or organisation.

This is what I call ‘business brainpower’, defined as:

            the ability to understand how people think and act differently to you, why they do, and how to apply this knowledge and understanding to manage problems, create opportunities and accept challenges.

If this case study has interested you, then email Jean for a free PDF   of her 1997 book, The Left and Right Brain Business.

Such events and their ongoing impact have encouraged me to consider a changed and practical approach to the governance of nonprofit organisations and service-providers in rural and regional communities.

Through the past 30+ years, I have enjoyed close and practical involvement with rural and regional nonprofit organisations, consulting with and writing for a wide range of nonprofits at Governance, Management and Operational levels of activity.

Nonprofit organisations, including those situated in rural and regional communities, are required to comply with legislative, statutory and contractual requirements and obligations as a:

1. legal entity,
2. employer,
3. lessee,
4. entity dependent upon gaining and maintaining accreditation,
5. contracted service-provider,
6. recipient of public, private or government funds,
7. self-help group,
8. public or special interest group,
9. peak body providing member-services,  or
10. local entity with accountability to a statutory authority, an entity established by Act of Parliament, or an multi- or trans-national organisation.

There is a need to clearly understand the difference and relationship between Governance and Management in most nonprofit organisations – whatever their nature or purpose.  Therefore, some definitions will clarify this difference and relationship:

Governance is the role and function of directing and monitoring the financial and operational performance of the legal entity through a formally established and endorsed strategic and policy framework.  There are three equally important major components in the governance function:

1. endorsement of a strategic and policy framework,
2. ensuring and monitoring the financial viability of the organization, and
3. ensuring compliance or conformance with all legislative, statutory and contractual duties and obligations.

Governing Body – the Committee or Board of Management in an incorporated association, or the Board of Directors in a company limited by shares or guarantee or in a cooperative is the governing body.  Members of the governing body are legally accountable to the body of members of the association, company or cooperative for their decisions, actions and obligations.  The Committee or Board is required to govern according to:

• laws relat­ing to it as a legal entity and laws relating to the purpose for which the organisation has been established,
• stated philosophy,
• objects, rules and by-laws set out in the rules/constitution,
• terms and conditions of contractual and service agreements, and
• endorsed strategies, policies, procedures and practices.

Legal entity – determined by the State, Territory or Commonwealth legislation under which a nonprofit organisation is incorporated or registered, eg an association incorporated under the relevant State or Territory Associations Incorporation Act; a company limited by shares or guarantee under the Commonwealth Corporations Act; a co-operative under the relevant State or Territory Co-operatives Act; or established by Act of Parliament, eg a Statutory Authority, established Church, multi-national service such as Red Cross.

Management – The senior paid staff position is accountable to the Governing Body for the overall management and operation of the service and day-to-day activities through a suitably qualified, experienced and competent body of staff… which may include a voluntary component.  There are many different titles for the senior paid staff position (eg CEO, Manager, Coordinator, General Manager)

The CEO (or other title) is directly accountable to the Committee or Board to:

• act as executive officer to the Committee or Board, which includes advising and informing the Committee or Board in fulfilling the governance role and function, and
• manage the affairs, activities and day-to-day operation of the organisation within the endorsed strategic, policy and financial framework.  The Committee or Board directs and monitors the performance of the CEO.

 Each legal entity has two major components:

•  legal, and
• organisational.

I have long perceived a general and widespread confusion and misunderstanding of the legal component in the governance role and function in rural and regional nonprofit service-providers – as separate and different to the organisational component.

Clarification of the relationship between the governing body and senior paid staff member is as follows:

• the responsibility of the governing body is to maintain the health and well-being of the legal entity (ie what the legal entity is) – and to endorse a strategic, policy and financial framework to guide management.
• the responsibility of the senior paid staff member is to introduce and maintain the best possible practices to ensure the best possible quality of service (ie what the legal entity does) – within the Committee or Board-endorsed strategic, policy and financial framework.

Key issues which can contribute to uncertainty at the Governance and Management levels in rural and regional nonprofit organisations include:

1. attracting adequate and appropriate human, physical and financial resources,
2. effect of distance on travel/delivery costs and schedules,
3. ensuring access, equity and participation – the three major components of community development,
4. frequent uncertainty due to weather events,
5. local acceptance of local service-providers as valuable and viable community resources,
6. local ownership,
7. long-distance proximity to central or regional authorities and advisors can lead to a sense of isolation and even neglect or disadvantage,
8. maintaining local community support (including financial and influential) in times of social and economic stress,
9. opportunity to contribute to local, regional and state-wide planning,
10. providing services across state/territory, municipal or regional boundaries,
11. seasonal periods in which the availability of key people and availability of support can be  uncertain,
12. service reliability, and relevance to individual service-user and local community needs, interest and aspirations – within specific rural or regional boundaries,
13. social inclusion,
14. status of a major employer in rural or regional communities.

Many of these key issues can lead to personal or group misunderstandings or misinterpretations, and local competition for support and attention – including recruitment and retention of association and Board members – and can contribute to divisions within the community.

Conversely, there are numerous benefits in and for rural and regional communities.  However, it is the difficulties that draw heavily on local energy and available resources.

Many rural and regional committees or boards are overwhelmingly committed to what the legal entity does, rather than to what the legal entity is - which means greater interest in and commitment to the organisational responsibilities rather than to the legal responsibilities. 

Suggestions for a changed and practical approach to the governance of nonprofit organisations and service-providers in rural and regional communities: 

Based on the strategy of separating the legal and organisational aspects of governance, to explore these options – the first, as always, is to do nothing:

1. Continue as is – with current difficulties magnified.
2. Separate the legal aspects of governance from organisational factors – and establish ‘skill-based boards’: this would require rationalisation of current numbers of nonprofits, and perhaps discouraging the establishment of new associations in order to focus on those already established.
3. Regional Associations incorporated to support the governance duties and responsibilities of nonprofits in which the Board is a willing participant, eg:
   1. Governing body of 5,
   2. membership base of currently incorporated nonprofits willing to be involved, who  would most likely be in receipt of funding and eligible for tax deductibility for donations, grants, etc.
   3. support and services from such a the Regional Associations could include:
      1. full-Board mentoring services,
      2. on-site visits to Board meetings or informal discussion sessions with the full Board (which always includes the senior paid staff position),
      3. exploration of legal implications of organisations decisions, eg partnerships, social/commercial ventures, mergers,
      4. on-line advisory service (Regulatory Bodies do not provide information other than factual – they are not an advisory service),
      5. assessing and supporting the importance and value of relevant research (a) already undertaken, and (b) that would be useful in the short-term,
      6. ensuring an active commitment to the ‘Key Issues to local communities’ above.

• assessing risk,
• setting measurable outcomes,
• estimating income and costs,
• scheduling tasks and activities to achieve the required completion date,
• allocating responsibilities,
• monitoring performance,
• financial planning, and
• planning holidays, changing jobs, moving house, planning retirement, and living a happy and healthy life.

Forecasting is now a discipline, with its own scientific language and programs.  But how do people outside of this discipline handle forecasting in their day-to-day business and personal lives?

In sorting out my huge pile of resource material gathered over 30+ years, I recently found a single page, typed on my electric typewriter in the late 1980s, with these notes:

A. Ascui – Western Australian Institute of Technology:    

Forecasting:  Four Categories of Appreciation

1. Indifference – such people are only interested and concerned with the ‘here and now’, either to file all forecasting ideas and material out of sight or into the waste paper basket!
2. Past Dominance – prefer the previous state to the one they are in: move into the future facing the past!
3. Defensive Conformity – believe the future cannot be changed, as it is determined by the past and the present.  They plan in order to control the effects of the future on them, not to control the future itself.  ‘Hardware’ oriented rather than ‘software’ oriented – things rather than people!
4. Purposeful Intervention – dissatisfied with current state of affairs as much as the way in which things are going; not happy with the present; not happy with the way the present is evolving into the future; the future depends more on what we do between now and then, than on what has happened until now!

Note: these different categories/positions will be mixed in different combinations in different kinds of forecasters, and people will apply them in different ways.

These four categories are remarkably close to the focus of my 1997 book, The Left and Right Brain Business. explaining and exploring left- and right-brain orientation.   With permission, the University Associates *Orientations Inventory is offered to enable readers to know their orientation and score as they proceed to explore this intriguing aspect of behaviour and relationships.  A score indicates a reader’s natural style on a scale of 59 – at the time of completing the Inventory:

• Left-brain style:  with a left-brain score of 32 or more and a right-brain score of 27 or less – can lean toward Categories 2 and 3 above
• Right-brain style:  with a right-brain score of 32 or more and a left-brain score of 27 or less – can lean toward Category 4 above
• Centre style:  where both scores fall between 28 and 31, ie 28 left/31 right, 29 left/30 right, 30 left/29 right or 31 left/28 right. – can lean toward Categories 1 and 3 above

Firstly, it is most important to know and understand that there is no right or wrong orientation or dominance.   Most people identify with one of the three distinct styles in a particular or defined context: eg in the workplace, in their business or work role, as a family member or as a friend and associate.  This knowledge and understanding can genuinely assist you in working with others.

Secondly, you will have either a left or right brain dominance, meaning that your score will be higher for either the left or right hemisphere.  This dominance indicates a more preferred and natural style, character­istics, values, behaviour and presentation.  Where your score indicates a centre style, it will show a slight dominance of either left or right brain orientation: and you are encouraged throughout this book to experiment with either or both left and right-brain characteristics and behaviour as opportunities arise.

On an individ­ual basis, the aim and ideal is for a person to be able to move across the three styles at appropriate times - either as they choose, or as differ­ent situations and people require them to do so;-and to be able to recognise the natural styles of colleagues and others in their day-to-day activities.   There is real potential to increase knowledge and acceptance of yourself and to increase your understanding and acceptance of others.

It is most important to realise that there is no right or wrong score: it is neither better nor worse to be left or right brain dominant.  This book quickly puts the reader’s mind at ease on this point.

A very simple and unscientific introduction to forecasting:      

In my first driving lesson a long time ago, I was extremely impressed that, from the driver’s seat, I could see behind, beside and in front of me (ie past, present and future).

Through early lessons, I had to understand the spatial aspect of driving – how to gauge the distance between my car and other vehicles, pedestrians, the kerb, and most importantly, how much room was available to me to enter moving traffic, pass other vehicles, drive through tight-fitting spaces, and park the car (ie how to use the knowledge gained by ‘seeing’ and application of my growing skill and increasing knowledge).

Email jean@jeanroberts.com.au for your free PDF of The Left and Right Brain Business.

Let’s imagine three different Managers preparing to meet the CEO’s requirement that this position be filled internally:

1. Manager A – for whom the key factor will be performance,
2. Manager B – for whom the key factor will be compatibility, and
3. Manager C – for whom the key factor will be dependability.

It’s likely that each Manager’s key factor is a reflection of their individual management style, which in turn is influenced by their personality characteristics, management experience and knowledge and understanding of the organisation’s culture and climate.

So we need to define each of the listed key factors:

1. Performance if defined here as the willingness and ability to effectively and efficiently fulfil the requirements set down for this position.
2. Compatibility is defined here as the willingness and ability to act, re-act and interact effectively with internal and external stakeholders.
3. Dependability is defined here as the willingness and ability to create new or different opportunities (ie innovation) as well as satisfactorily maintain existing commitments and relationships (ie maintenance).

Manager A has, by definition, a high value on effective completion of tasks ‘on time and on budget’

Manager B has, by definition, a high value on effective working relationships.

Manager C has, by definition, a high value on the internal and external environment within which the organisation operates – which includes both effective completion of tasks and effective working relationships.

I’d suggest that Manager C has a higher possibility of selecting ‘the right person’ for the position’ – in the best interests of the organisation.

However – there are at least two situations in which even Manager C will be challenged:

1. where  the Manager is expected to select a person whose experience in the organisation has been as a member of an internal team, and has not had the opportunity to display their potential for this position, or
2. where no person currently employed could be expected to meet the Dependability definition.

In Chapter 5 of my 1997 book, The Left and Right Brain Business, Table 2 illustrates the differences between the characteristics of Manager A (left-brain orientation) and those of Manager B (right-brain orientation).   This Table illustrates differences between left-brain and right-brain behaviour, and it’s easy to see that each orientation needs the balance of the other – which is our Manager C.

The 10 Business Skills in this illustration are:

1. decision making
2. problem solving
3. delegating
4. negotiating
5. communicating
6. presenting information
7. managing people
8. team leadership
9. choosing the right person for the right position
10. counselling the right person in the wrong position

A few examples:

Negotiating

Left-brain behaviour uses rational and logical approach, guided by facts

• identifies a fall-back position prior to commencing the negotiation process
• stays the distance to obtain best possible result
• may be disadvantaged by being inflexible and emphasising detail

Right-brain behaviour uses intuitive and conceptual approach, guided by feelings

• identifies a fall-back position during preliminary or even later stages of the negotiation process
• responds to the situation as it develops to obtain best possible result
• may be disadvantaged by being flexible and responding emotionally

Communicating

Left-brain behaviour uses direct statements in a structured, rational, factual and logical manner

• thinks things through carefully before starting to speak or write and is therefore economic with words
• focusses on facts and statistics: not particularly interested in feelings or anecdotes

Right-brain behaviour uses descriptive or free-wheeling language with half-finished sentences, emotion, anecdotes and generalisations

• starts to think at the same time as starting to speak or write, therefore verbal and written communication are likely to be loose and open-ended
• focusses on feelings and anecdotes: not particularly interested in facts or statistics 

Managing people

Left-brain behaviour is to be performance or outcome oriented

• focusses on each person’s performance and results
• establishes a management framework based on rules, regulations and procedures
• is guided by an objective assessment of the potential and performance of each person
• is cost-conscious in managing people, weighing up performance in terms of dollars and impact on task process and completion

Right-brain behaviour is to be person or process oriented

• focusses on feelings and process
• adopts a flexible management style based on emotional appeal, consultation or consensus
• is guided by intuition in assessing the potential and performance of teams
• is investment-conscious in managing people, weighing up the person in terms of possible or potential contribution to organisational objectives

Please email jean@jeanroberts.com.au for your free 116-page PDF of The Left and Right Brain Business (Jean Roberts, 1997)