Fio Partners Perspectives

A new home for our blog!

We are very happy to announce that Fio Partners has a new website with a new home for our blog!  Future blog posts can be found there....if you have signed up to view our blog via email, there is nothing to do, just relax and all posts from the new site will automatically be sent to you.

If you subscribe via a feed reader, you will have to update your reader with our new feed address:  http://fiopartners.com/blog/rss

If you are coming to our blog through a search engine, come on over and see our new site and our latest blog entries.  Thank you so much for your interest in Fio Partners!  

 

Photo Credit: Steven Snodgrass

Managing and Leading: The Helix as a Metaphor for Organizational Change

I have been playing with a set of ideas for a book about managing a nonprofit in these uncertain times.  A colleague suggested that I start that process by blogging about the central ideas that will form the basis for the book as a way of getting off the dime on this project.  So this blog (and hopefully the next several blog posts) is about the central ideas that I want to explore. 
 
If we think of the tasks of managing and leading (M&L) as activities that steer an organization in a certain direction and sustain its well-being, then it stands to reason that there are themes embedded in that set of management and leadership tasks.   My thesis is that the themes really don't change even though the environment may fluctuate wildly around us.    The picture to below is a helix.   

If we think of an organization embedded in its environment and evolving over time in a specific direction, it takes on this very organic form.   I especially like the image because the helix is the basis of DNA, an essential component of all life forms.   Margret Wheatley, in her book Leadership and the New Science, talks about the similarity between organic life forms and organizational development.  As I have thought about her work, I have found this metaphor for organizational change of a helix spiraling through space and time helpful.  
   
What I come away with from this image is two sets of characteristics…one, the themes that weave together the spiraling outer core (the boundary between the entity and the world around it) and two, the bars that keep the helix from spinning apart.   What are they made of?   I think of them as lines or themes or threads of cohesive strategy that must be carefully thought through and shaped if the entity is to thrive in whatever world it is in.  They are also streams of energy that are initiated, sustained and shaped by leadership.   If we think of a leader as a helmsman or a driver, then these are the rudders or the reins by which we steer.

I see those themes as:

1.    The lines of continuity:  these are the bars that hold everything together.  These are the organizational elements that endure through time or that change very slowly, things like vision, mission and values, policies, attributes of culture,  engagement in a system of related products or  services, practice philosophy, management principles.  Managing these ensures that there is a stable set of concepts and ideas that provide a conceptual framework for internal stakeholders  (board, staff, volunteers), to count on through time.  They provide a sense of cohesive identity that allow people to understand how to engage, support, and function within the organization.

2.    The lines of accountability:  these are made up of threads in the outer spiral and are embedded in the internal reality of a functioning entity.   Some endure and some change.  They include internal elements such as data collection and evaluation,  quality assurance and practice improvement as well as the continuous adjustment of the outside threads of funder, donor, and regulator interaction and reporting.  Managing them expertly enhances the likelihood that resources will flow into the entity.

3.    The lines of adaptability:  these are threads in the outer spiral that are permeable and chameleon like, that allow information about how the environment is changing to come inside where it can be considered, thought about, and allowed to shape how an entity charts its course and changes its colors.  These threads are all about relationships and connections at their outermost edge and about innovation and change at their inner edge.  Managing these threads well ensures that an entity can adjust, survive, and continue to do well as the environment around it shifts and changes.  

These lines inform and support the strategic and tactical decision making of managers and leaders.  We will look at how to shape each one and how each relates to the various levels of decision making and to the shared power model on which every nonprofit is based  as we proceed. 

Are you exploring consolidation? Which segment are you?

I attended a meeting recently about a local United Way conference that potentially will deal with exposing nonprofits to models and ideas concerning consolidation.  As the discussion proceeded, the complexity of the issue kept coming up.  One of the conclusions was that there might actually be different market segments of organizations, and that, perhaps, the segments are distinct enough to actually provide programming for them differently….maybe. 

So this conversation has been niggling at the back of my brain and I thought I would attempt to define the segmentation.    In some ways all of these groups are early adopters of the technologies of consolidation.

The Innovators:  These are organizations that are pushing the cutting edge of their fields or the sector.  Think social innovation.   These organizations are mostly new, young, and flexible.  They don't have entrenched boards or lots of money to spend, or lose.  They do have ideas, lots of them.  Because they are young, they are not hung up on structural change or working collaboratively. This segment also includes some older and more established organizations who are market/client driven and are intent on capturing larger market share or just serving people better, and are not afraid to change their structure, either through alliances, networks, subsidiaries, or mergers in order to accomplish their aims.  I include in this group some of our larger clients who are beginning to articulate an acquisition plan as part of their strategic management work…a completely new phenomenon in the sector.

The Cost reducers/Back office enhancers/Group purchasers:  These organizations are experiencing declines in revenue but not so much decline that their organizational lives are threatened.  They are interested in either reduced back office costs or enhancing their back office supports. By sharing space and/or back office services such as finance, human resources and information management, these organizations are seeking a better return on their investment on infrastructure expense and/or the ability to shift funds spent on administration to programming to meet increased demand.  This segment is very broad and includes arts organizations, environmental groups, and health and human service entities.

Negotiators of Systems Level Change:   There are a number of human service systems that are affected by significant field changes that would have happened anyway, even without the recession.  Examples include the movement of the child welfare field away from long term residential placements for kids and changes in adult education that more clearly link adult education programming to workforce development efforts.  The recession has picked up the pace on these initiatives but did not cause them.  There are also systems changes that directly relate to the recession, e.g. the nursing home industry, where threatened programming cuts in state contracts are so severe that there is a need to completely rethink how the system will operate with greatly reduced funding.  

The Nearly Bankrupt:  These are organizations that have cut staff, reduced programming, cut benefits, exhausted their reserves, and are running out of options.  These are merge or die situations in which the goal should be to salvage that unique program that no one else has, preserve jobs for particularly talented staff, pass on unique tacit knowledge that would other-wise disappear, or ensure that the nonprofit's assets are appropriately reinvested in services with a similar mission.   This group also includes organizations who are being pressured by funders to close due to quality issues, either to close specific programs or to shut down completely.

The Vast Majority:  Those who are either not feeling economic pressure or prefer to shrink to a smaller size than share resources or give up autonomy.  

I can already see some overlap in these groups and some "combos" that share attributes of more than one segment, e.g. organizations facing system level changes may simultaneously consider back office consolidation. The question for capacity builders is whether we actually need different educational programs or support services for these groups.  What do you think? For nonprofits, which segment do you see your organization in?  What types of programs or support services would be most helpful to you?

 

 

 

Some thoughts on market segmentation relative to consolidation in the sector

 

I attended a meeting this week about a United Way conference that potentially will deal with exposing nonprofits to models and ideas concerning consolidation.  As the discussion proceeded, the complexity of the issue kept coming up.  One of the conclusions was that there might actually be different market segments, and that, perhaps, the segments are distinct enough to actually program for them differently….maybe.

 

So this conversation has been niggling at the back of my brain and I thought I would attempt to define the segmentation.    In some ways all of these groups are early adopters of the technologies of consolidation.

 

1.        Innovators:  these are organizations that are pushing the cutting edge of their fields or the sector.  Think social innovation.   These organizations are mostly new, young, and flexible.  They don’t have entrenched boards or lots of money to spend, or lose.  They do have ideas, lots of them.  Because they are young, they are not hung up on structural change or working collaboratively. This segment also includes some older and more established organizations who are market/client driven and are intent on capturing larger market share or just serving people better, and are not afraid to change their structure, either through alliances, networks, subsidiaries, or mergers in order to accomplish their aims.  I include in this group some of our larger clients who are beginning to articulate an acquisition plan as part of their strategic management work…a completely new phenomenon in the sector.

2.       Cost reducers/back office enhancers/group purchasers:  these organizations are experiencing declines in revenue but not so much decline that their organizational lives are threatened.  They are interested in either reduced back office costs or enhancing their back office supports. By sharing space and/or back office services such as finance, human resources and information management, these organizations are seeking a better return on their investment on infrastructure expense and/or the ability to shift funds spent on administration to programming to meet increased demand.  This segment is very broad and includes arts organizations, environmental groups, and health and human service entities.

3.       Negotiators of systems level change:   there are a number of human service systems that are affected by significant field changes that would have happened anyway, even without the recession.  Examples include the movement of the child welfare field away from long term residential placements for kids and changes in adult education that more clearly link adult education programming to workforce development efforts.  The recession has picked up the pace on these initiatives but did not cause them.  There are also systems changes that directly relate to the recession, e.g. the nursing home industry, where threatened programming cuts in state contracts are so severe that there is a need to completely rethink how the system will operate with greatly reduced funding. 

4.       The nearly bankrupt:  these are organizations that have cut staff, reduced programming, cut benefits, exhausted their reserves, and are running out of options.  These are merge or die situations in which the goal should be to salvage that unique program that no one else has, preserve jobs for particularly talented staff, pass on unique tacit knowledge that would other-wise disappear, or ensure that the nonprofit’s assets are appropriately reinvested in services with a similar mission.   This group also includes organizations who are being pressured by funders to close due to quality issues, either to close specific programs or to shut down completely.

 

5.       The vast majority:  those who are either not feeling economic pressure or prefer to shrink to a smaller size than share resources or give up autonomy. 

 

I can already see some overlap in these groups and some “combos” that share attributes of more than one segment, e.g. organizations facing system level changes may simultaneously consider back office consolidation. The question for capacity builders is whether we actually need different educational programs or support services for these groups.   Don’t know…helpful?  Not helpful?

 

 

Consolidation of the sector? Maybe not.

Well, the study is out.  One would have thought that, if the sector was going to consolidate in a big way, that time would be now.   Our firm is certainly doing some of this work, and as I check with colleagues around the country, so are they.  But the numbers are not overwhelming.  The new study, released in October, by the Urban Institute may give some insight into why that is.  See Human Service Nonprofits and Government Collaboration: Findings from the 2010 National Survey of Nonprofit Government Contracting and Grants.

Most common coping strategies used to deal with government cutbacks and/or late payments were:

• Freezing or reducing employee salaries
• Reducing the number of employees
• Drawing down on reserves
• Reducing health, retirement or other benefits
• Borrowing
• Cutting programs and services

Consolidating with other entities didn’t make the list of coping strategies.   Organizations would rather shrink than partner, it would seem.   There has been a fair amount of effort on the part of foundations, United Ways, and nonprofit associations to educate the sector about models to capture partnerships and to encourage this thinking.

I am wondering though if we are going at this the wrong way.  I think we have this upside down.   I always teach that form follows function,  that you have to know what you are trying to accomplish before you decide what structure is best suited to the purpose.  But each and every time we have one of these discussions about all the different ways organizations can get partner (the structures), we never really get around to talking about what they want to do, or what they need to do, or why “ it” is important or whether partnering  is necessary to get “it” done.  The structures, including mergers, are just tools.  Organizations should work together for a purpose…and given how often having partners is really quite annoying, the purpose has to be worth it.  Maybe the focus should be on inspiration rather than mechanics....on brainstorming some big outcomes that can only be accomplished by coordinated effort…and stimulating that discussion with examples of folks who are at least attempting to do big, important things and have found that they need new and different structures to do those things.  

We know some people like that and it is an honor to be working with them.  But what are you experiencing?  Are you and your partners asking the big questions? Or just working to keep the doors open?

 

Getting back to writing...

Apologies to our readers for the long the delay in adding to our blog posts.  These have been difficult months with major surgery, a long recovery and then resuming our consulting practice post that event. Enough excuses though.  On the upside, the long hiatus has given me the opportunity to do a lot of reading.  So the head is full and the pages are empty, at least so far. 

Very recently, I have stuck my toe in the water of a social networking site called Triiibes founded by Seth Godin, an incredible marketing genius.   The site is like a city and brings minds from all over the globe into proximity with the goal of promoting innovation and disseminating ideas.  It is heady stuff. 

Last night's discussion was about change and how change happens.  It began with some introductory remarks about the level of incivility in the media and public discourse and the intense animosity that seems to be everywhere.   Are we changing minds by all of this frantic and highly emotional discourse?  Or is this just an excuse to vent frustration and batter one another?   It is easy to beat up on the people we disagree with…it is much harder to try to encompass in our own brains the point of view of "the other." 

What I liked about this conversation was where it ended last evening (it yet may continue for days).   There seemed to be agreement among the participants that effectively changing the world for the good is not noisy and combative.   It is not about hype and media attention.   It is about attracting one person, educating one person, working with one child or one adult, and teaching the skills of effective listening, collaboration, and conflict resolution.  There is a wonderful and perfectly ordinary school system in a small town in New England.  Ten years ago they had a bullying problem at the high school.  Now teachers see a marked improvement in how children treat one another.  Why?  They instituted a robust curriculum that teaches these skills starting in kindergarten.  This is known knowledge…this is not a mystery.  We just don't do enough of it. 

Nonprofit Collaboration - Tools and Funding Opportunities

In the last month or so, we have come across some exciting funding opportunities for collaboration as well as some online tools that may be helpful to nonprofits looking to collaborate! 

IdeaEncore

The IdeaEncore Network is an online marketplace for the sharing of ready-to-use tools, presentations, course outlines, templates, and project plans within and between nonprofit organizations. The system is designed to provide incentives for sharing and a range of intellectual property protections for shared materials.  If there is a network of nonprofit agencies interested in sharing materials, the network provides a free, easy-to-use platform.  Those materials can also be free to network members, while being offered at a cost to other nonprofits using IdeaEncore.  This tool promotes not only knowledge sharing, but provides the opportunity for revenue generation.  What excites us most about IdeaEncore is the deep set of relationships with nonprofit capacity builders that the creators have established, from the Alliance for Nonprofit Management to the CT Association of Nonprofits.  IdeaEncore is working to establish itself as the go-to site for nonprofits interested in saving time (by not re-creating the wheel) and learning from others.  We are also pleased to announce that we have shared many of our articles and materials with the IdeaEncore network as well.  Check this new tool out!

GoogleDocs

So here's the issue: a group of nonprofits with information, interested in sharing that information across the group, who have realized that combining excel spreadsheets by hand is cumbersome and time-consuming, and the information must be gathered quickly?  Answer:  GoogleDocs.  Free, easy to use, and easy to access.  The Spreadsheet option allows you to create a spreadsheet (similar to Excel) the can be shared with anyone using an open URL link.  The spreadsheet can be edited - or locked for viewing.  If you are interested, in a quick solution to support a collaborative effort, GoogleDocs can be immensely helpful.  If you would like some additional support on how to do this, we are happy to help.

Funding Opportunity in Connecticut: Nonprofit Incentive Collaboration Grant Program

It has come to our attention via an email this morning from the Nonprofit Assistance Initiative, which is part of the Connecticut Community Foundation and the United Way of Greater Waterbury, that the State of Connecticut has announced a Request for Applications for grant funding for two or more nonprofits to collaborate.  The program's purpose is to provide grants for one-time infrastructure costs to implement consolidation of programs or services. Grant funds may be used for the purchase of, or improvements to, facilities; refinancing of facility loans; equipment purchases; energy conservation, transportation and technology projects; planning and administrative costs related to such purchases, improvements, refinancing, or projects; and relocation expenses related to physical consolidation. The term “programs and services” is broadly defined to include joint ventures involving share business operations, functions, or services. There is total of $5 million in funding available statewide.  The deadline for applying is September 22, 2010.  For more information, view the application instructions.

2011 Collaboration Prize

The 2011 Collaboration Prize, a national award designed to identify and showcase models of collaboration among nonprofit organizations, is now accepting applications.   The Collaboration Prize will award a total of $250,000 to the collaborations that best exemplify the impact that can result from working together. Each of the eight finalists will receive $12,500 and the winner will receive an additional $150,000. The finalists and winning collaboration will be announced in April 2011. The online application, eligibility criteria and details about the selection process are available at thecollaborationprize.org. There you also can learn more about the 2009 Prize finalists and winners and access the Nonprofit Collaboration Database, resource for everyone seeking real-life examples of how nonprofit organizations are working together. The application process closes on July 16, 2010.

Have you come across other tools and funding opportunities focused on collaboration? Share them here!

Getting Started with Nonprofit Collaboration

At a recent event sponsored by the Liberty Bank Foundation, Jane was asked by an audience member, "I have no resources to pay a consultant to help us determine if we can identify ways to collaborate with other organizations or even merge.  How can I get started?"  Jane responded, "All it takes is a relationship, knowledge about the possibilities, and a cup of coffee." 

What do we mean by that?  It is important for you to not just think of your own organization's survival in these times.  We encourage our clients to think about the organizations that support the populations they serve and to consciously construct a relational map.  Then monitor that map to understand the effects on the organizations in their arena.    Who are the organizations that refer clients to you?  Who do you refer to for ancillary or supportive services?  If your clients need housing supports, or basic needs supports, who is providing them?   Who are your competitors and what shape are they in?  What are their plans…which programs will they close or cut back on?  If you have partnerships with other organizations, how are they doing?  Will they be able to maintain their contribution to your joint work?   What is the status of your relationship with the leaders of these organizations?  After developing your own relational map, identify the individuals/organizations with whom you have strong, positive relationships and/or a common focus, client base, or geographic area. 

The other component that we believe strengthens these conversations is knowledge about the possibilities.  There has never been a time where understanding what is possible has been more crucial.  Nonprofit leaders must learn how to use models of collaboration and consolidation: formal agreements, joint ventures, management service organizations, networks, parent corporations and mergers.    There are innumerable examples that can be searched and examined on the Lodestar Prize Collaboration website.  The National Council on Nonprofits recently compiled a guide to sources that are available: .  In addition to Jane's book, Forging Nonprofit Alliances, we also recently published an article for funders who are considering how to support these types of efforts that also may be helpful to you.  It is up to you to build your understanding of the possibilities that are available to you.
 
What next?  Here comes the coffee.  Collaborative efforts can simply begin with a cup of coffee and a conversation with another nonprofit leader that you have identified as a possible partner - not with a lawyer or an expensive feasibility study.  Key questions for your discussion may include: 

• Where are our efforts to support our clients aligned?
• What are the impacts of the current environment on our clients?
• Are you interested in exploring ways that we can support one another?
• What is the status of your programs and funding?
• Who else may be interested in talking with us? 

So give it a shot, consider the options, and reach out to a potential partner…what have you got to lose?

Are you already collaborating with other agencies? How did you get started? What was most helpful to you?  We will share responses and suggestions in a future blog entry.

Photo Credit:  DeePeaJay

Tips for Saving Money in the Back Office

A recent project to help an Executive Director whose agency has had to downsize infrastructure to match a reduced program portfolio led to some interesting learning that I thought I would share. 

It is not difficult to determine the relative efficiency of a finance office.  The use of comparables can help a decision maker determine whether seeking further efficiency is likely to be fruitful.  Using personnel costs only (salaries and benefits), it is easy to compare the relative efficiency of organizations of different sizes.  Dividing the total salary and benefit cost by the numbers of dollars managed by this staff will yield a cost per dollar managed.   Use organizations in the same or similar industry and the same geographic location in order determine this cost so that prevailing wage rates are comparable.

In talking with CFO's from various organizations, we also learned about several ways that nonprofit organizations are working to reduce back office costs.   Certainly the most consistent and highest cost in a finance office is personnel.   What drives the number of personnel is the number of transactions that must be carried out and recorded.  One way to drive down the staff costs is to examine whether the number of transactions can be reduced.   The following are some ideas for ways to reduce the numbers of transactions:

1. With careful safeguards in place, use credit cards for purchasing predictable products and services that cannot be bought in bulk.  While each item purchased will still be entered into the books with its assigned account number, use of credit cards reduces the number of checks that have to be written and recorded.   Credit cards in one agency are locked in a safe in the finance office and can only be taken out by program managers for specific purposes.  Choose   credit cards accounts can be monitored online. 
2. To more efficiently manage petty cash, one organization is negotiating with its bank to set up debit cards with strict dollar limits. Again online monitoring is key.
3. Examine your organization's payables list carefully.   Identify vendors who are receiving checks every month or more than once per month.   Can you aggregate these purchases?  Can you negotiate with the vendor to be paid quarterly?
4. Use of www.firstgiving.com:   this entity aggregates donor giving and provides the charity with a single check.   Annual fund donations, as well as ticket purchases for special events can be set up so that the donor can make the donation or purchase the ticket on-line.  Use of this tool can reduce the number of checks recorded from hundreds to a few.
5. Use of a bank sponsored scanner for deposits:  one agency, working through its bank, has purchased (one time cost of about $1000) a scanner that allows deposits to be made daily in the Finance Office without costly and time consuming trips to the bank.  The scanner also creates a deposit receipt.  The use of this tool greatly reduces accounts payable staff time, increases accuracy, and speeds up cash flow.
6. Analyze purchasing to determine purchases that should be combined or bought in bulk.  This analysis is also helpful in discussions with strategic partners who might want to work with your organization around joint purchasing.  What are the five highest volume purchases that your organization makes?  Is there potential here to both reduce these costs as well as reduce the transaction cost to make these purchases?
7. Work with your bank and payers on electronic fund transfers to speed up cash flow and reduce staff costs. 
8. Do you use ADP or another payroll service?  Be sure to work with them closely to determine whether there is merit to using some of the ancillary service packages such as tracking earned time off, pension accruals, etc.   Tracking this information can be very costly in staff time and automating this function can also increase accuracy. 

What other tips have you implemented?  What would you recommend?

Photo Credit: AMagill

Understanding Trust Issues

I received an interesting question from one of our clients who has had to lay people off, not once, but twice, in the last year.  She shared with me her feeling that she had somehow undermined her employees'  trust in her and she wondered how to restore it.   I also received a call from a Board member of a different organization wondering about an effective way to deal with the fact the trust between some Board members and the Executive Director appeared to be eroding.   So I have been thinking a lot about trust and what exactly that means.  I've worked on this issue before and recently have revisited some reading on the subject and thought I would share my conclusions.

In diagnosing trust issues,  it is helpful, I think, to think about how trust is expressed in workplace situations.  In our Board survey, we ask about three kinds of trust that we think are important for the both the ED and Board leadership to show evidence of:  (1)trust related to competence:  do others perceive leadership as able, knowledgeable, possessing the skills to do the job that they have been given?  (2) contractual trust:  when an organization leader, either Board or staff, agrees to do something, do they actually do it?  And do they do it with fidelity, fully and completely?  And,  (3) communication trust:  first, does leadership tell the truth and, second, does leadership disclose information appropriately to the right people at the right time?   Failure in any of these areas can undermine trust.

In order to "fix" trust issues, I think you have to explore the source of the distrust. An Executive who has had to lay off staff may be dealing with employee questions about whether, if that ED was better at her job, those layoffs could have been prevented.  That may mean they haven't been privy to the environmental pressures the organization is facing.  Or, staff may feel that the ED did not communicate appropriately about the layoffs, such as failing to inform middle managers and supervisors in sufficient detail so they could adjust and support remaining employees?    If trust is eroding between an ED and Board members, over what kind of incidents is that happening?  Is this an issue of perceived competence, failure to keep a promise, or missed or inappropriate communication?  Once we understand why trust has eroded, it becomes possible to craft an intervention.   Be forewarned, the intervention will almost always involve intensive listening and clear and truthful communication. 

I don't think it is helpful to look upon trust as there, or not there.  A lot can go wrong as we try to manage organizations in these difficult circumstances.  As difficult choices are made, trust levels may fall.  The critical skill is diagnosing when trust begins to erode and intensifying efforts to shore up trust before it completely disappears.   A former mentor of mine explained that people in authority have "a reservoir of good will" and when they act in ways that erode trust, that reservoir of good will drops.   It can be replenished.  If we fail to do this, then we revert to the old adage:  "Trust gone, game over." 

How have you experienced trust issues in your organization? What type? What kinds of interventions have been most successful?  

Photo Credit:  Joe Nangle

2010...off and running!

A new year.  A new decade.  Welcome 2010!

As we are two weeks into 2010, Jane and I were noting that a year ago we believed the trends in 2009 would include retrenchment and consolidation.   And in many ways, that is exactly what we saw.  Organizations thinking strategically about how to shift resources to more efficiently deliver on mission.  Leaders struggling with how to deal with declines in funding - from every source.  2009 for many nonprofits was a rough year.  Is the worst behind us? 

As we look ahead to 2010, we believe that the trends around retrenchment and consolidation will continue - but with an increase in collaboration and innovative solutions.   Among our clients, we are seeing more of a willingness to partner, to explore the development of networks, to shift competitive relationships to collaborative relationships.  Driven by external forces, the sector is being forced to change.  Leaders are being forced to change the way organizations are managed and make difficult choices about staff and programs.   We believe one of the key core competencies for leaders in 2010 will be how to manage change - how to keep staff focused on mission while managing changes within the organization and in the external environment.   

We continue to be excited about our role in supporting you to enact changes in your communities and are looking forward to all that 2010 will bring.

Photo Credit: teapotqueen

 

 

Evaluating the CEO/Executive Director in a Tough Economy

Coming up with a meaningful evaluation model for the CEO or Executive Director can be difficult  for Boards in the best of times.   What should Board’s do in the worst of times?  I was recently asked this question by a former client and sent along an article I wrote a couple of years ago that defines a criterion based approach to CEO evaluation. The criteria provided are designed as a basis for discussion between the committee and the CEO/Executive Director.  There are five types of criteria: (1) essential functions or key responsibilities; (2) key skills involved in carrying out the Executive’s Director’s role;  (3) key attributes or characteristics displayed by the Executive Director; (4) key aspects of organizational health; and (5) specific accomplishments that have been previously negotiated.  An organization may use one or two of the criteria sets, or may draw from all five.  Whatever combination of criteria is used, the items should be weighted appropriately by the Board Committee before assessment   Weight should reflect how important the item is to the organization at this stage of its development.  What I realized after I sent the article is that the criteria and accomplishments are premised upon circumstances that are positive and characteristics that are appropriate in good times.   While some attributes are always good to have, there are some missing elements that I think are particularly important now.

1. If we have had to shrink the organization, how well was this handled?  Were the decisions about where and how to cut back logical and based on principles that were discussed with the Board?  Were employees leaving the organization treated with compassion and respect?  Was the separation process handled smoothly, informed by appropriate legal advice, and did it minimize future liability for the organization?
2. Of the resources we have currently, have we maximized the funds we are investing in mission based activity?  Are we minimizing administrative costs (not by foolishly doing without adequate infrastructure) but rather by working with other organizations to create back office economies?
3. Are we positioned properly to grow again on the other side of the downturn?  Have we kept the people who will help us do that?   Are we knowledgeable about how our field is changing and are we prepared to meet the challenges of these changes?
4. Have we culled our program portfolio?  Have we removed programs that are not a fit with a mission or where there is clear duplication, or where we are not competitive from a quality standpoint? If we are deficit funding a program,  do we have agreement at the Board level that this is appropriate and needed by the community we serve?
5. What is the status of our strategic partnerships?  How healthy are our organization’s relationships?  Are we appropriately involved in collaborative projects in our field?  Has the CEO helped the Board understand what is happening relative to consolidation of our partners and competitors?  Is the Board prepared to support discussions of consolidation should these offers occur?  Do we have a policy in place that clearly defines Board and staff roles in collaborative efforts?
6. Has our CEO developed strong change management skills?  Have we intensified internal communication efforts?   Are we correctly engaging key stakeholders as our organization changes? 

These are my thoughts…What do you think should be included? What are you seeing at your organization?  Is your Board talking about these issues?

Photo Credit: JoelTelling