Category: leadership

Strategy, Risk, and Implementation

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

Final day of whitepaper release week!

From the new Spark whitepaper, Risk: The Missing Link Connecting Strategy to Implementation, co-authored with Jamie Notter (JamieNotter.com) and Leslie White (Croydon Consulting):

Having…conversations around risk and opportunity is not necessarily easy, but it’s becoming increasingly important in today’s complex, mutable, fast-paced environment. You need people at all levels of your association who can analyze and make key decisions that are in line with your strategic direction, and that means they need the skills and tools to quickly get beneath the surface conclusions that create conflicts in order to resolve them, decide, and act.

You do that by:

  • Asking better questions
  • Bringing assumptions to the surface
  • Agreeing to disagree
  • Focusing on the decision

You can find out more about how to do that by downloading the free whitepaper at http://bit.ly/MJ5oo8.

Additionally, Jamie, Leslie, and I offer training for senior teams to help you develop the skills to make better decisions faster. You can find out more on the Spark Services | Training page.

 

Risk, Strategy, Conflict, and Consensus

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

Whitepaper release week continues!

From the new Spark whitepaper, Risk: The Missing Link Connecting Strategy to Implementation, co-authored with Jamie Notter (JamieNotter.com) and Leslie White (Croydon Consulting):

Strategy and risk are about choosing to do certain things and, sometimes more importantly, not to do certain things. Conversations about these choices are difficult because your organization naturally has a range of overlapping concerns and interests, typically represented by specific groups of people, maybe a department or a membership segment. When you have different groups representing different interests, it often leads to conflict. And most organizations don’t handle their conflict well.

Get the full whitepaper (for free, no personal information required) at http://bit.ly/MJ5oo8.

How Does Risk Relate to Strategy?

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

From the new Spark whitepaper, Risk: The Missing Link Connecting Strategy to Implementation, co-authored with Jamie Notter (JamieNotter.com) and Leslie White (Croydon Consulting):

Risk management is an intrinsic part of strategic thinking. When considering a strategy, you must first determine whether that strategy aligns with your risk appetite…The biggest challenge associations face in establishing a culture of strategic risk management is to get people comfortable thinking and talking about what could go wrong—or right—on the way to realizing your excellent new ideas. The key is to match your risk exposure to your risk appetite, while not undervaluing potential lost opportunity.

Like what you read? Want more? Download your free copy at http://bit.ly/MJ5oo8.

Why Does Risk Matter?

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

From the new Spark whitepaper, Risk: The Missing Link Connecting Strategy to Implementation, written with Jamie Notter and Leslie White:

The risk management process involves the continuous identification, assessment, prioritization, and selection of risk management techniques; implementation; and monitoring of outcomes.

But what if the board and senior team members don’t all agree on what the risk is, how likely it is, or what impact it might have? What if the decision-makers don’t have the same appetite for risk? What if they don’t accord the potential opportunity the same level of importance? Risk management sounds straightforward in theory, but the effective practice of risk management requires broadening your awareness about uncertainty and risk and integrating this risk awareness directly into your strategic decision- making. You need to define your risk strategy.

Want more? Download your free copy at http://bit.ly/MJ5oo8.

Risk: The Missing Link Connecting Strategy to Implementation

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

I’m excited to share the launch of the fourth whitepaper in the ongoing Spark whitepaper series, Risk: The Missing Link Connecting Strategy to Implementation.

Co-authored with Jamie Notter (JamieNotter.com) and Leslie White, CPCU, ARM, CIC, CRM, (Croydon Consulting), the whitepaper tackles the question: why do senior teams have so much trouble with strategic decision-making?

Our answer is that a major contributing factor is that they are unable to have good conversations about risk, risk management, risk appetite, and how that all relates to opportunity and opportunity cost, because they avoid conflict and have a mistaken understanding of what constitutes consensus. The whitepaper shares both theory and techniques to help senior teams have better conversations, make more informed choices about risk and opportunity, and ultimately, be more effective in forming and implementing their strategies as a result.

I’ll be blogging about the contents of the whitepaper all week, but in the meantime, pick up your free copy at http://bit.ly/MJ5oo8, no divulging of information about yourself required.

And don’t forget to check out the other Spark whitepapers:

The Looming Retirement Crisis

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE | 5 Comments on The Looming Retirement Crisis

No, I don’t mean the typical “Boomers haven’t saved enough!” wailing, although that’s certainly likely to be a problem. I mean the hourglass problem.

As in, there are somewhere between 72-79 million Baby Boomers, and there are a lot fewer Gen-Xers. I’ve seen figures ranging from 39-49 million, and I find it telling that while it’s easy to get a definitive answer to “how many Boomers are there?” it is not easy to get the same information on Gen-X.

Much like we hear today in regards to Millennials, in the early/mid-90s, associations were freaking out about Gen-X not joining. “It’s the damn Internet! Websites will be the death of us!” Uh, no. Turns out, it was mostly a life stage issue. As in, “I’m 25, and if you’ve seen Slackers, you realize that there’s a good chance that I not only haven’t settled on a career, I’m not even sure if I’m coming back in to THIS job tomorrow.” Sure enough, as Xers started to settle on careers, we also started to join associations.

But – and this but is important – we’re approximately 50% smaller as a generation than the Boomers that preceded us. What that means is that, even if we join and participate at the exact same rate at Boomers, associations are potentially facing a membership and leadership (both paid and volunteer) crisis.

But – and this is also an important but – it’s probably temporary. Coming up behind Gen-X is the even larger than the Boomers (80+ million) Millennial generation. Who are currently in their “I’m 25 and I’m not settled” phase. The good news is, due to various generational characteristics (like their team orientation, interdependence, connectedness, and community-mindedness), the future looks pretty good for civic and professional engagement, volunteering, networking, involvement.

So there’s probably no reason to panic, but associations are still going to need to bridge that gap created by the Gen-X waist of the hourglass. How?

Reach up, and reach down.

Plenty of associations are currently focusing on young professionals, with discounted or even free dues, mentoring programs, outreach, networking opportunities, leadership programs, educational programs, creating set-aside seats in governance for young professionals, reaching out to students in their professions or industries, career services, etc. And all that’s important. This is a generation that is likely to be more loyal and respectful of authority than their cranky Gen-X elders, which means bringing them in and giving them a place early is likely to pay good dividends.

The area that I see associations ignoring, though, is reaching up to retired and retiring members. They are a huge untapped resource for associations. Boomers are, generationally, people who will support things for the common good, at least far more so than cynical Gen-X. They are retiring more gradually and partially than previous generations. They are living longer, healthier post-retirement lives.

In retirement, or at least semi-retirement, they have some tremendous assets that associations can use. They have time, wide networks, and expertise. They also have less money than at the height of their careers, and less need to stay up to date on all the latest in their professions or industries.

How might that play out in keeping them engaged to help associations over the Gen-X dip, until the Millennial cavalry arrives?

Boomers make great mentors. Not so much to Gen-Xers (remember, we’re the “kids these days are no good” generation), but definitely to Millennials, who are just starting out in their careers and who are inclined to like, trust, and want to work with their elders. And they like to share their expertise in new technologies. Is your association running a cross-mentoring program to match experienced Boomers with early career Millennials, who can, in turn, help those Boomers learn tech?

Boomer make great fundraisers. Retaining elements of their youthful idealism, they do believe in causes. And they have the time and networks to do some dialing/visiting for dollars, or even contribute themselves as major donors. What Big Idea projects does your association wish you had the funds to try? Who among your long-term members can help you get there?

Boomers have great experience and institutional knowledge. They can teach courses on key issues in your industry or profession, or even help prepare the coming generations for volunteer leadership roles in the association. Some might provide that expertise for free, and some might appreciate a little extra cash for developing and teaching high-level courses in your field.

What other ways can you think of to engage your “elder statesman” members to benefit your profession, your industry, your association, your membership, and your young professionals?

I think finding good answers to that question will be one of the major keys to association financial health in the coming decade.

Learning to Take Critcism

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

This is a tough one, right?

Criticism happens to all of us, whether it’s in the form of evaluations after a presentation, the official annual review, unofficial feedback from a boss or colleagues, or editorial comments on something we’ve written.

First, we feel shock: “You didn’t love it?”

Next comes the hurt: “You just said you think my baby is UGLY?!?”

And then, generally, the outrage: “How dare YOU criticize ME?!”

If you’re able to respond with equanimity immediately, going straight to “maybe my critic has a point – I should assess this rationally,” check your pulse. You might be dead.

But then what?

Usually, responding to criticism is something we do less well early in life and our careers, and, hopefully, is something we learn to do better as we mature as people and professionals.

Let me offer a brief example from my own career. Early on, a boss told me that I make decisions rashly and without doing research or considering the data or other options.

I was young, and I didn’t particularly like or respect this guy. In my mind, he was so risk-averse, he was probably afraid to change his socks. So I dismissed his comments with a “Whatever, Poky. I’m decisive, and you just can’t handle it.”

However, the issue of perceived (too?) rapid decision making came up again later in my career, when I was more experienced and able to think about it rationally.

Here comes the advice part.

The first thing I did was unpack what he was really saying.

“Rashly” is a judgement, and a fairly harsh one at that. Let’s try putting it more neutrally.

“You make decisions too quickly.”

Better, but that’s still a subjective opinion.

“You make decisions more quickly than I am comfortable with.”

Ah ha! That’s truth, it’s accurate, and it doesn’t put either party in the place of necessarily being right or wrong. That I could work with.

What about the second part? “Without doing research or considering the data or other options”?

That’s an attribution of cause that may or may not be correct, but it’s what he was perceiving from the outside.

OK, now I had a neutrally-phrased critical observation attributed to a cause that might or might not be correct, which is a good starting place.

The second thing I did was to ask people I trust for some insight on this. “We both know I tend to be pretty decisive, but I’ve been given feedback that I make decisions too quickly and maybe without considering all the data. What do you think?”

At that point, I got some really useful feedback from people who knew me well. They helped me see that because I process information quickly and play it pretty close to the vest while I’m doing so (in Sally Hogshead‘s schema, I’m a “secret weapon”), from the outside it can look hasty. All others see is that I made a decision quickly, and they don’t know how I chose. So what I need to do is let key stakeholders into my process a little more, so they’ll be more comfortable.

What did I learn about taking criticism?

  1. What’s the source? Does this person have my best interests at heart? Do I trust him? Is she being objective? Some people are just ill-intentioned or have an axe to grind, and over-reacting to their feedback doesn’t help you.
  2. Have I heard this more than once? The more frequently you hear something and the more people you hear it from, the more likely it is to have some degree of truth.
  3. How can I reframe this in a neutral/objective way? Try to take the judgement out and concentrate only on what’s at the root of the critique. And remember that the critique is always from a particular perspective.
  4. What’s the critique versus the purported cause? Try to separate the feedback itself from any attribution of cause, since your critic might have correctly identified a symptom, but might very well be misattributing what’s driving it.
  5. Who can help me? Ask people who know you well and where you can trust what they think. The people around us often see us more clearly than we see ourselves.
  6. Finally, take everything you learned from this process and apply it to how you can improve in the future.

I’ll admit, it’s a lot easier to brush off criticism with a, “What an asshole! What does SHE know?” And it’s totally acceptable to START there. The key is what happens next.

Novelty for Novelty’s Sake

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

As associations, we have to be wary of “we have always done it that way.” And if you read this blog regularly, you know that I rail against unwillingness to change pretty frequently. I would count myself as strongly pro asking new questions, proposing new ideas, and coming up with new ways of doing things.

But.

I think we also have to watch out for changing gears just for the sake of changing gears. Sometimes, we’re too quick to dump things that are working.

I’m not saying rest on your laurels, get stale, and never ask any questions about how you can improve. If something is working well, there’s almost always a way to make it work even better. We should always be looking for opportunities to expand, improve, tweak, test, and learn to see if we can get better results.

But we also need to be make sure we don’t throw out effective campaigns or programs or services just for the sake of novelty.

 

Strategic Planning v. Strategic Thinking

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE | 2 Comments on Strategic Planning v. Strategic Thinking

Lots of chatter about strategy and strategic planning on the ASAE Collaborate groups recently, with lots of people throwing around lots of VERY IMPORTANT sounding terms.

Me, I like simplicity. To quote the Eaglet from Alice in Wonderland: “I don’t know the meaning of half those long words, and, what’s more, I don’t believe you do either!”

What do we mean when we talk about strategy?

Strategy is a plan of action designed to help you achieve a set of goals. The best strategies answer a few deceptively simple questions:

  • Where are we now?
  • Where would we like to be?
  • How are we going to get there?
  • How will we know we arrived?

The way that tends to manifest in associations is that every 3 to 5 years, we hire an outside facilitator to sit down with the board and – maybe – the senior leadership team and do “strategic planning.” The inevitable result? A lovely report that spends the next 35 to 59 months sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

Meanwhile, the world is changing EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Henry Mintzberg wrote a famous article for the Harvard Business Review in 1994 (that’s almost 20 years ago, people) titled “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning.” Short version: he’s not a fan. As Mintzberg points out, strategic planning is about analysis of data, while strategic thinking is about synthesis of data. Strategic planning is a process (see above, RE: report that sits on a shelf), while strategic thinking is about vision, intuition, and creativity. In other words, about where you would like to be as an organization and how you get there,

Dissecting strategic thinking versus strategic planning:

  • Dynamic rather than static
  • Flexible rather than rigid
  • Continuous rather than episodic
  • Focused on emergent trends rather than historic standards
  • Rapid rather than staid
  • Fluid rather than fixed
  • Invention rather than reifying what already exists
  • Journey rather than destination
  • Accommodates disruption rather than being thrown into chaos by it

Again, quoting Mintzberg:

“Strategic planning often spoils strategic thinking, causing managers to confuse real vision with manipulation of numbers. And this confusion lies at the heart of the issue: the most successful strategies are visions, not plans.”

What are you doing to generate a vision of the future in your organization?

“That Sounds Risky…”

Posted on | by Elizabeth Weaver Engel, CAE

Back in June, Leslie White (Croydon Consulting) and I presented a session for ASAE’s Finance and Business Operations Conference (FHRBOC). It was a simulation on risk management. We had assumed, given that it was a room full of accountants, that everyone would a common understanding of, and language around, risk.

Boy, were we wrong.

And it got us thinking: when senior teams are trying to make decisions together, do they suffer from the same problem? A lot of what we do or consider doing in associations involves the assumption (and hopefully mitigation) of risk. What if senior teams don’t share an understanding of what that means? How can they even have good, open conversations?

Well, as soon as we started thinking about good, open conversations, we realized we’d want to involve Jamie Notter (Management Solutions Plus), too.

So here’s what we’ve come to:

In today’s environment, an association’s success is contingent on its ability to make good decisions quickly. Heading in the wrong direction, or simply treading water while you try to decide, will move you further and further behind your competition. Today’s competition is tougher, and the margins are thinner, so we simply can’t afford to fumble our way through decision making.

Nowhere is this more evident than at the management team level. Here you have a group representing diverse interests that is tasked with making strategic decisions to support the whole enterprise. Yet the topic of how decisions are made (and what methods and processes would be best) is rarely tackled explicitly. Despite the imperative mentioned above, we actually do fumble our way through decision making.

As consultants, we see this problem and want to do something about it, but only if it actually makes sense to association execs, and only if we’re not duplicating what other smart consultants in the association space are already doing. So we have a few questions for you.

  • What is your experience with decision making at your organization?
  • What kinds of conversations do – or don’t – you have about risk?
  • If you are experiencing problems in these areas, what impact is it having on your organization? Your staff? Your relationships with your volunteer leaders?
  • Is there a need here?
  • Have you worked with somebody great who’s helped you through this, where we should talk to her first or just get out of her way and let her do her work?

Short version: we think there’s a problem here, we’re interested in trying to figure out how we fix it, but we’re not interested in trying to reinvent a wheel someone else has already done a better job creating.

What are your thoughts?