Bobbing for Answers

A question frequently puzzled over by mission driven leaders is, how do you measure mission impact? The answer is difficult to sort out.  Indeed, challenging as it might be, measuring activity, efficiency and capacity is a cake walk next to measuring mission impact. Here are some thoughts as you set out to answer this important question.

Envisage the answer. Start with the organization's vision to remind yourself of what complete success looks like.  When I was a litigator examining a witness, the notecards in front of me contained the answers I wanted to elicit, not the questions I intended to ask. Having the desired result in front of me, rather than questions, freed me from my preconceived notions of how the witness would respond and it gave me the flexibility to tailor the questions to the unpredictable tone of the environment.  The same can work here. Instead of basing the questions on the programs and projects that are in place, begin by thinking about the fundamental problem the organization seeks to solve; form initial impact questions unrestrained by the existing programs.

1-2-3... What can be counted to determine if there have been gains in solving the underlying problem? Then drill down, drill down, drill down more. Do not let yourself or your organization off the hook on the hard metrics.  Struggle to determine how to unearth un-manipulated raw data, apply rigor and establish causation between interventions and results. Make sure your organization is not rebranding input or output numbers as outcome or impact measures. Ultimately the measures have to be organization-specific, but sift for excellent ideas from other organizations with similar, relevant characteristics.

Remember the end game. Back away from the numbers and the frustration they might bring.  No metrics are perfect.  Every calculable result has multiple causes and not all can be controlled for. Many generally accepted measures are based on proxy values. Many established conclusions are based on inference. "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Qualitative data is valid data. Conduct interviews, self-assessments and observations in a systematic way and then analyze that information along with the inevitably flawed, but oh-so-important quantitative data. Ultimately, synthesizing the collection of information in an intellectually honest way and being able to tell the authentic impact story is more important than the label on data collected.

Ask Bold Questions

With a pure heart and an impassioned soul you've committed time, energy and emotion to the mission of your organization.  Your hard work and long hours have paid off in pristine financial records, well oiled donor reporting mechanisms, and trained, professionally developed and reviewed-to-perfection employees.  But, are your interventions working? 

Be willing to ask this bold question.  But beware, 

A. It is uncomfortable. There is no comfort in entertaining the possibility that, "I did my best, but I guess my best wasn't good enough." And the discomfort only grows as we visualize having that discussion with employees, donors and stakeholders. So, instead of relying solely on your innate ability to push past the discomfort, embed asking the question into organizational routine.  Make it a practice that you do at predetermined, regular intervals. And solicit additional perspective. From time to time bring in someone external to the organization to assist in the assessment.

B.  The answer is difficult to sort out. Businesses use profitability as the core measure of success. This measure requires consideration of context and it is best used alongside other measures, but still, it is pointed and clear.  Mission driven organizations do not have that luxury.  Measuring mission impact (versus activity or organizational efficiency and capacity) is not necessarily linear, is often fuzzy, and is generally frustrating. But there are some models that serve as a place to start.

C.  Chances are better than average that the answer is no. Mission driven work is hard. In Warren Buffett's words "[p]hilanthropy is harder than business.  You are tackling important problems that people with intellect and money have tackled in the past and had tough times solving."  

Ask the question any way.  It is in that asking and in the examination that we take steps forward.  

Operations is Sexy

Well, not really. But it's also not boring.

Perhaps I can understand how "the administration of business practices to create the highest level of efficiency possible within an organization" could not excite everyone. And maybe “leveraging the day to day activities of utilizing location, resources, personnel and process to produce products and provide services efficiently and cost-effectively” does not automatically ignite passion.  But at its core, business operations is the function of ensuring that all business groups, units, departments -- whatever you call them -- are integrated into the guiding business plan.

Here's a description that, for me, puts it into perspective, and when you put it into perspective, that's when it gets good.

Operational leaders bridge the gap between high level strategic planning and tactical implementation. With one foot rooted firmly in planning and the other in process, they skillfully anticipate how the next great strategy can impact real day-to-day issues. On the floor they are facilitators, but in the boardroom they are translators.   

Defining Business Operations Within the Organization

It's about taking a bird’s eye view and noticing interconnections among all things -- marketing, HR, accounting, business units, the available resources, the CEO, the vision.  It’s about effective collaboration. It marries the poetry of strategy and peasantry of the day-to-day. It's conducting a classically trained orchestra, or bringing together a jazz ensemble without allowing improvisation and artful discordant notes to become chaos. And it’s doing all of this while never allowing the melody of the strategic goal to get lost.

Now that's attractive. Right?  

Executive Prescience

“I know it when I see it.”

Justice Potter Stewart 
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184  (1964)

The notion of executive presence gives me pause.  First, it has no generally accepted definition and it is ripe for the infusion of unhelpful bias. Too often this nebulous trait is inextricably linked to "6 foot 2 inch tall males who look like they were sent from central casting." Moreover, I cannot find clear research that demonstrates a relationship between executive presence and effective leadership.

To the extent the notion refers to someone who can read a person, room and circumstance – perhaps even before words are spoken, anticipate what is required to advance productivity in a given situation, and then comfortably act on what is required, those traits are no doubt valuable.  Collectively I shall call it Executive Prescience. 

While I like my new term, the concepts are not new and there is plenty of good work being done to ensure that we have a continued pipeline of leaders with these traits. The ability to tune-in is emotional intelligence, and the characteristic that allows decisive and comfortable action is authenticity. 

These traits can be learned. And happily they are being taught to people at younger and younger ages. The sooner children learn to behave in socially intelligent ways, the better equipped they will be as they become the adult leaders of the 21st Century.  Indeed, I recently learned of a program that has as its sole focus teaching social-emotional intelligence to kids.   

Here’s one final link.  It’s about coffee and emotional intelligence.  Say it ain’t so!

Leading In Style

My fitness trainer used to say, "be the animal you are born to be."  A lion with its loud roar, large body and powerful presence gathers food and avoids harm in a different way than a rabbit with its acute sight and hearing, quiet movement, quickness and small body.  So it is with leadership.

Certain personality styles may better suit specific employee groups and boards; for example, introverts may be more effective at leading proactive teams, while extroverts may be more effective at leading passive teams, but there is no one right personality type to motivate group action.  Effective leaders may be unassuming or dynamic, operational geniuses or talent management superstars. But the most important characteristic in leadership effectiveness may be knowing your natural style and using it to its best advantage.  

In addition to effectiveness, there are other advantages to leading in your natural style:

• It's less exhausting for the leader.  Acting like somebody else is exhausting.  Behaving as different characters at home, work and in the virtual world is exhausting. 
• It's less exhausting for colleagues.
• It's time saving.  An authentic leader takes into consideration input from others, but does not have to revisit a decision wondering what several someone-elses would have done.  As one of my training partners said to me, "it's hard enough to make a difficult decision once.  Do not torture yourself by making the same decision over and over again."

To unearth your authentic leadership style, consider the questions on page four of Discovering Your Authentic Leadership.

And here are some additional resources to ponder:
Emotional intelligence quiz
Personality test
Personal engagement profile

Are Our Digital Lives Hindering Engagement of Diversity?

• Half of all American children under the age of five are non-white.  
• Twenty five percent of children in the U.S. have at least one immigrant parent.
• Forty five percent of college aged American students are political independents.

 Success is being redefined

How to get there is being redefined 

The end-game is being redefined

Tomorrow's donors, voters, members, clients and employees are diverse in thought, behavior and demographics. Engaging this inevitable growing diversity requires a shift in leadership mindset and management technique and a fresh review of mission and vision. More and more, there is a need for learning about unfamiliar perspectives and considering ideas that may be be uncomfortable.

Abundant Access. Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, online journals, Wikipedia, chat rooms and on and on.  Ten years ago Facebook didn't exist.  Eight years ago Facebook had six million users.  Today, Facebook has one billion users.  That means Facebook has access to the population of the third largest country on the planet. The opportunity to network with people of diverse backgrounds, interests and thoughts is more available than ever.

Social Unnetworking? Lately I have been thinking about the drawbacks of the digital age when it comes to engaging diversity.  Here's what I mean:

Twitter for example...
A benefit of Twitter is that it provides access to the needle in the haystack.  We can find that small group of people in the entire country that shares our very unique interest. Truly fantastic. But it also means that when it comes to ideas, we can find that small group that thinks like us and use it to reinforce our very narrow view, to the exclusion of considering other perspectives.  Google (and others) helps us with this.  Google keeps track of our searches so that ads are customized just for us.  The more we access the web, the more the virtual powers-that-be customize what we see to align with our current perspectives. And because what we see influences what we think, it becomes a wonderful cycle of affirmation!

"Control your digital identity"...
I attended a wonderful continuing legal education seminar last week where we were advised that, like it or not, we all have digital identities.  Rather than ignoring those identities, the experts encouraged us to control them.  Manage what pops up when someone searches your name.  "Push down" any online images that you may not like.  All good advice, but does this knowledge make us less willing to meaningfully explore oppositional ideas?  What if you're conservative and you regularly read a blog that discusses liberal ideas?  Or you're an environmentalist and you engage in online conversation with a leader in the energy industry? Could that impact your digital identity? Are you willing to take that chance?

Be Intentional.  Although we have what seems like endless access to information, ideas and people, unless we are intentional about seeking out oppositional views, and fearless about communicating with those who are different from us, we are in danger of lulling ourselves into believing we are examining the spectrum of information while really we are just deepening the roots of our pre-set ideas.  In real life, diversity is increasing. Let's make sure virtual life simulates that.

Imprinted Moments

Each of us has moments in our life history that imprint themselves on us, set the foundation for what we “know” life holds, and become the backdrop against which we see everything. For someone living through the Depression, for example, what they know life holds might be scarcity, and against that backdrop all actions might be infused with frugality. The thing is, in the scheme of things these moments — even if decades long — are fleeting. And with the dawn of the Knowledge Age these moments pass even more quickly.  

Recently I read a blogpost about vision-based versus mission-based culture.  At its essence the post recognizes that organizational risk-taking and innovation are indicia of good stewardship. Leadership requires stepping away from imprinted moments not because those moments are outdated or inherently good or bad, but because they are not the only backdrops against which all else should be measured. When we allow ourselves to see multiple backgrounds against which things can be viewed, it changes how the things in the foreground appear. This is particularly important for non-profits, the purpose of which is to bring about change, rather than maintain the status quo (or sometimes, to maintain the status quo in opposition to change on the horizon; in any event, it's not riding the wave). This is particularly true in the 21st century, a time when transparency is demanded and information is abundant.

I am exercising my ability to exorcise my set backdrops. For example:

• Kids get up in the morning and go to school:  moment not fact.  
• College education and professional training lead to prosperity: moment not a fact.

I don't expect that I will move past my imprinted moments and I'm not sure I want to.  Deep down I may always feel that leg warmers and shoulder pads are a reasonable style choice. But that doesn't mean I have to wear them.