Leading at Light Speed by Eric Douglas » Non Profit

The “Hostile Media Effect” – A Lesson in Group Dynamics

admin — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:45:15 +0000

David Pogue, the New York Times columnist, writes in Scientific American this month about the “hostile media effect.” This is a cognitive phenomenon where people who hold strong opinions about something perceive that media coverage of that topic is prejudiced, no matter how neutral the coverage actually is.

The same phenomenon happens in groups. People who hold strong opinions about something perceive that anyone who asks questions is biased against them, regardless of how neutral or innocent the questions are.

I saw it in action this week during a meeting of the executive team of a health care company. Ten people gathered in a large conference room overlooking San Francisco to discuss the strategic issues faced by the organization. I asked each person to reflect on these questions: “How is the health care environment changing in California? What are the most important opportunities for the company? What should be our priorities over the next year?”

For the most part, the ensuring conversation was excellent. One team member talked about the “triple transformation:” the realignment of state government, health care reform, and the emergence of community care organizations. Another said she was worried about trends in work force development and the growing need for people with expertise in integrated care. Yet another talked about the importance of marketing services to public agencies.

Then Michelle spoke. She was vice president of marketing, new to the management team. She started by saying: “In my old job, this would be called channel management.” Eyes turned to her. “In a dynamic environment, we need to look at each customer segment and provide a unique value proposition.“

A team member asked: “Can you give us some specific examples?”

“You’re missing my point,” Michelle said. “We need to think more like a business.”

“In what ways?” said the team member.

“We need to be more business-like with our customers. We assume our customers will be there tomorrow, when that’s not necessarily true.”

There was an awkward silence. I could feel the tension ratcheting up in the room. “Which customers are you referring to?” she was asked.

“All of them,” Michelle said. “It should be obvious.” She stared defiantly at her inquisitor.

After the meeting, the CEO asked for my impressions. “I thought it was a good, productive discussion,” I replied. “With one exception.”

“Are you referring to Michelle?” he asked. “That was classic. There should be a name for what she did.”

“There already is,” I replied. “It’s called the hostile media effect. She’s highly opinionated and perceives innocent questions as hostile to her.”

“Is it curable?”

“Only in cases where you can get them to eat a large piece of humble pie!”

Learn the habits of high performing organizations in my new book: http://leadingatlightspeed.com.

Managing Decisions in a Light Speed World

admin — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:30:40 +0000

In a world where change is accelerating, where new products and services are developed in ever-faster cycles, the quality of decisions is ultimately the most important test of leadership. Ironically, many managers and leaders are still working with Old World decision-making skills, even while their companies are trying to succeed in a Light Speed world.

A critical skill that leaders must learn in a Light Speed world is how to juggle and manage complex decision processes. As I describe in my latest book, “Leading at Light Speed,” there are five – and only five – types of decisions: autocratic, consultative, consensus, delegated, and democratic.

To be effective in a Light Speed world, more decisions have to be made “consultatively.” In a consultative decision, one person or one group ultimately makes the decision – because it’s their responsibility to do so. In a consultative decision, the leader engages people up front, clarifies that it’s her role to ultimately make the decision, and then gains people’s input. She makes it clear that she is open to different ideas – and she actively creates opportunities for people to speak up. But there’s no expectation that consensus will be reached; instead, people are encouraged to make their case, listen to other arguments, and then listen and answer questions as the leader comes to a conclusion.

There are three keys to success in a consultative decision: First, the leader needs to say up front how the decision process will go and who will make the final call. Roles and responsibilities at each step need to be mapped out. Second, there must be regular updates to remind people when they’ll have opportunities to contribute. Third, it’s key to record the ideas and feedback so that people know their views were heard.

The advantages are obvious: Instead of everyone needing to agree before a decision is made, a consultative decision can flow smoothly to a conclusion. Because people can speak their minds, unfettered by the need to agree with everyone else, unconventional thinking has a better chance to be heard.

Contrast this to a consensus decision. When using consensus, everyone must agree – a much more difficult and time-consuming process. And to what end? Some would say the end is greater “ownership” in the decision. But our experience working with hundreds of different organizations is that people actually lose trust in consensus decisions for several reasons. First, people may have stifled their feelings in order to reach agreement, resulting in a “faux” consensus. Second, people may feel that they had to water down the quality of the decision in the urge to reach consensus. Finally, when people perceive their leaders failing to take responsibility to make decisions, they lose confidence and trust. What’s the point of leadership, they ask, if the people in charge don’t actually manage and make decisions?

Last week, I worked with the executive team from a large organization to help them learn how to manage decisions more effectively. The CEO turned to me afterward and said: “I realize now why we have so many problems with decision making in our company: We aren’t clear at all about how we are going to make a decision. So people simply assume it’s going to be consensus, or assume that the team asked to develop some recommendations is going to make the final call. This has been a huge eye-opener for me!”

The Case of the Restless Board

admin — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:46:07 +0000

I’m working with a Board of Directors that is proving most challenging! This particular Board is a chamber of commerce composed of business owners. Every meeting is a marvel of micro-management. Should our web site have a blue banner or green? Which vendor should we use to host our annual meeting? Tactical decisions like these, which should be left to staff to decide, become all-consuming conversations for this Board.

The root problem is a lack of trust between the Board and executive director. I’ve tried to create systems to build trust. I facilitated the development of a clear and comprehensive business plan. We have developed a performance scorecard. I have talked to the Board about the importance of letting things play out, to see whether the executive director and his staff are up to the task. But no sooner do I make this speech, when I turn around and witness a Board member who wants to talk about the choice of vendors at a cocktail reception!

Boards that truly want to make a difference, that want to generate lasting, sustained success in their organizations, need to stay focused on the things that Boards should do: clarifying and communicating the strategic focus of the organization. This will build trust and enable the executive director and staff to act nimbly and effectively in the face of constant change.

But members of this Board seem only interested in what’s in it for them, today. Part of it stems from the unique way that the organization is funded and structured. Each Board member represents a specific constituency that pays into a central fund that supports the organization. Board members are intrinsically motivated to make sure they get their “fair” share of the kitty.

What I’ve come to realize is that I haven’t done enough to build a collective sense of stewardship on this Board. They still see their job as steering the ship, rather than setting the course. We need to spend more time on long-range vision and specific measures of success tied to that vision.

People often ask me which of the quantum leaps described in my new book “Leading at Light Speed” is the most important. All ten are important. But I would say that aligning people around a clear strategic focus is the most important. It is the framework and the vehicle that enables a Board like this one to build trust and start moving at light speed.

Related Blogs

Streamlined Strategic Planning for a Non-Profit

admin — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:13:07 +0000

Here’s the text of an email I sent today to the president of the Board of Directors of a non-profit. I think it speaks to how to do streamlined strategic planning for a non-profit.

“Hi, Meg – The best way to make this process go expeditiously is to prepare a draft plan for the Board to look at. The work we do before hand with the executive committee should be oriented to creating that plan. We’ve already decided on the format for the plan.

“The key decisions the Board needs to make revolve around reaffirming the mission of the organization – and then deciding the specific goals/priorities to achieve – within its resources. The key questions to ask are: ‘What’s our underlying strategy in terms of how we will achieve each goal? How will we re-allocate resources to assure we have the capacity to achieve it?’ Don’t make the mistake of setting goals and then starving the organization of resources to achieve them!

For example, if raising money from grants is a priority, then you’ll need capacity to research and develop grants. If generating revenue from fee-for-service programs is a priority, then you’ll need capacity to manage those programs. You have to work through the options, decide where the impact will be greatest, and make choices.

For each potential goal, keep asking, do we have the capacity? If not, how will we get it? At what cost? What will be the benefit? Is the return to our mission significant?

I look forward to seeing you all and helping you lead this to a successful conclusion.

Related Blogs

A Good Day for Non Profit Strategic Planning

admin — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:34:46 +0000

Yesterday was a good day with a client in Los Angeles. It’s a non-profit association with two dozen branch offices. The process was good – I helped them see the situation clearly. They had some key issues to deal with. The authority has traditionally been vested in the local branches, not in the central association office. The first issue they needed to tangle with was how to construct a more rational system that devolved sufficient authority to the central hub to enable the organization to operate efficiently.

Wrapped around the governance question was a financial issue – the organization, though profitable, was declining financially. Something needed to be done to create a sustainable business model. Happily, they had the answers at their fingertips. Many of the pieces were already being conceived – a much bigger fund-raising operation, more vertical oversight of back office operations. But several pieces of the puzzle were missing – most importantly, a strategy for front-loading the investment in new capacity. Where was the money going to come from? Second, they needed to agree on what oversight by the central association office really meant? Did it mean true performance management with consistent expectations tied to both positive and negative consequences? Or did it mean something else?

By the end of the two days, we had the puzzle completely assembled. We figured out which assets would be sold to raise the cash. We figured out a new framework for flexible governance and oversight, rewarding high performing branches with more autonomy, penalizing low performing branches with more oversight. We had the performance assessment piece in place. We’d sharply defined the role of the branch directors. We had worked on the vocabulary and messages to describe the strategy effectively. By the end of the second day, everyone had their assignments. The team was aligned. They were ready to go.

Next blog article: “Strategic Change Management“