In our work at Creating the Future, we seek to change the questions embedded in the day-to-day work of individuals and organizations, so everyone naturally brings out the best in each other and in our world. This involves an intentional focus on language and how we use it to move conversations forward, to result in positive, systemic change in our communities.

In my own work, I have been noticing a groundswell of opinion that revising the language we use about engagement will be an important step in involving individuals and groups thorough service. Specifically, by eliminating references to using volunteers, volunteer programs, volunteers as a free commodity, and the need we have for volunteers in our organizations, organizations are taking dramatic steps forward in impactful community engagement.

In a recent blog post, Tricia Thompson of Points of Light opined that it is time to stop framing the systems through which organizations engage volunteers as “programs” and, instead, position them as “strategies.”  This shift in language can lead to a dramatic change in the way volunteerism is seen as a resource. Rather than the “volunteer program” being in competition with other programs that need funding and serve clients, the organization can view volunteerism as a strategic initiative that is an asset for both the community and clients.  Such a change can also help organizations look at creative and innovative ways that volunteerism can be woven into their organization since it is no longer perceived as stand-alone “program.”

The Reimagining Service movement has inspired organizations in every sector to change the ways volunteerism is perceived and has moved entire communities to look at service through a different lens. By acknowledging – and backing up with data – that investment in volunteerism is necessary in order to achieve desired impact, we eliminate the perception that volunteers are a free resource. As a result, organizations from all three sectors are working together to ensure that adequate resources are allocated to supporting the engagement of citizens in relevant and mutually-rewarding service.

Oftentimes, community benefit organizations market their “need” for volunteers. This is yet another area where we are seeing a change in language reap tremendous benefits.  As Sarah Jane Rehnborg, PhD, and her colleagues point out in Strategic Volunteer Engagement, presenting volunteerism as a need focuses on only the motives of the organization rather than taking a more relationship-oriented approach that acknowledges mutual benefit.  In addition to driving a more value-focused conversation, changing the language about volunteerism to present it as an opportunity is a more effective marketing and recruiting approach. Just as in product marketing, individuals are more likely to pay attention and take action when messages highlight the benefits to them of becoming engaged.

Finally, we are also beginning to see a shift in the job title and responsibilities of the staff member responsible for facilitating volunteerism in an organization. The traditional title of “volunteer coordinator” or “director of volunteer services” is being used less often and the person in the role is no longer responsible for supervising volunteers directly – that responsibility is spread among all members of the paid staff. Organizations are creating a role for a “coordinator of community engagement” and broadening the job duties. Their responsibilities encompass the preparation of staff members to more effectively work with volunteers – both traditional and non-traditional, developing innovative and creative ways to engage a diverse range of community members  in a variety of work throughout the organization, and ensuring that those who become involved have a positive experience and become advocates for the organization.

There can be tremendous power – and potential for innovation – when we change our words and language to expand the ways we think about engaging the community authentically in the achievement of positive community change.

• What is your organization’s vision for community engagement?

• What opportunities do you have to change the ways you and your colleagues discuss volunteerism and engagement?

• What would a change in language and actions around service make possible for your organization and community?

• What would people inside your organization – and outside in the community – need to believe and value, in order to achieve authentic, mutually-beneficial community engagement?

We all know that getting the right board members around the table is crucial. That’s probably why there are thousands of articles and blog posts that talk about recruiting new board members.

Some focus on the “attribute grid” or “board matrix,” or “skills grid.”  That’s the grid that helps you identify the skills and attributes you want on your board, relative to the skills and attributes you already have on your board, and where the gaps are.  Standards for Excellence™ has one for its members, as does KPMG  and many others.

Then there are articles that tell you to throw the infamous grid out the window, like Blue Avocado, in their article ‘Ditch Your Board Composition Matrix’. These make the very valid point that just having a lawyer on your board doesn’t mean a darn thing, if she’s a divorce lawyer and you need someone with real estate law knowledge. Or if he’s a tax accountant, and you need someone who can oversee the nonprofit accounting process.

True confession: In the past, I have been a proponent of attribute grids, while leaning more towards the Blue Avocado model – what are we trying to accomplish? Who do we have, who do we know, who’s in our corner who can help us accomplish this? As a matter of fact, I still think that way.  But there’s a glaring omission.

The thing is, skills don’t make a board, people do. And people have basic qualities that can make a board exceptional – or dysfunctional.  Board members who don’t respect the Executive or each other are toxic. Board members who don’t care about the cause won’t do anything to further it. Board members who live in the past – ‘tried it once, didn’t work’ – don’t consider how the world has changed.

So no matter what other skills a board member has, she must have these:

• A passion for the cause
• Respect for others
• Thoughtful ability to consider issues, and to articulate those thoughts
• A sense of responsibility for making things happen
• The vision to think beyond today

Passion for the cause is first and foremost. Why waste a seat on the board with someone who doesn’t care enough to really work for your success?

Respect is probably next. I’ve experienced too many boards where board members belittle the executive or a staff member in front of the board or their peers. And I’ve experienced other boards where discussions devolve into a shouting match between two members who don’t even try to listen to each other. Time is too short and your cause is too worthy, to waste a seat on a disrespectful board member, no matter how much money they might give.

Thoughtfulness – the ability to really consider the issue at hand and weigh its ramifications for the organization – is a rare gem. The best board members ask questions that cause you to think through your own responses as well. If a board member can’t stop to think about why he is in favor or against an initiative, then you’re allowing his personal past experiences to automatically have a vote, regardless of where those experiences have led.

Passion, respect and thoughtfulness are great, but responsibility is where the rubber meets the road. When it comes time to act, you need board members who take responsibility for ensuring that promises are fulfilled.  Whether it’s connecting the executive with the governor, reviewing the audit, or making calls to supporters, promises don’t cut it. Board members must take responsibility. As sung by Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady, “Don’t talk of love, show me!”

Finally, board members must be able to envision the future and think beyond today. So many decisions affect both today and tomorrow; considering only today’s issue jeopardizes your future. Faced with an excess of income (it does happen!), do you put the funds aside for tomorrow or spend it today? Do you invest in building infrastructure or in professional development so tomorrow you can serve more clients? Faced with a significant deficit, do you cut back programs or invest in development staff? Envisioning the future ramifications of today’s decisions is imperative for your future.

Passion

Respect

Thoughtfulness

Responsibility

Forward thinking

This is the final checklist when weighing the value of a new board member.  Without these five qualities, you can have the best real estate lawyer, the best CPA, the best HR administrator, each at odds with each other, unable to make a decision and unwilling to connect you to those who can help you change the community.

So go ahead, consider what you want to accomplish, and seek people who are able to make it happen. But before putting them on the board, use this checklist. Ask yourself, do you want to work with this person?

Susan Detwiler is the founder of The Detwiler Group and works to create sustainable organizations by helping them craft strategic plans aligned with their vision, mission and values; educating their board and staff to facilitate that alignment; and connecting them to the resources they need to achieve their mission.

Rather than starting with any of the abundant leadership advice books, articles, blogs, or websites for guidance on leadership, we reached out to experts in Creating the Future’s Facebook group for consultants to community benefit organizations and asked them –What compelling questions about leadership do you like to explore? Their questions provide a framework for discovering personal insights, values, and beliefs that can help anyone on a journey toward reaching their highest potential as a leader.

Consider the following:

• How do you approach conflict and confrontation?

• How do you identify what motivates your team – not just imposing what motivates you onto them – and how do you use that to inspire greatness?

• How do you identify and develop natural leaders in your community – those with no formal power but to whom people listen?

• How do you help develop everyone’s leadership abilities?

• How do you create an environment where others feel safe to fail?

• How do great system or network leaders differ, if at all, from great organizational leaders?

• How do we help our followers become great followers?

• What would be possible if we stopped talking about leaders and, instead, focused on leadership?

• What do we hope that leadership makes possible and how can everyone benefit as a result of it?

• How do we move away from “hero” leadership (focused on individual traits) to transformational leadership (focused on positive social change)?

• How do we make leadership more inclusive?

Through a thoughtful exploration of questions such as these, leaders, potential leaders, and followers can better identify the conditions through which leadership can make a positive difference in our organizations, communities, and the world.

What are some additional questions that are helping you to identify the principles and practices that shape you and your organization’s approach to leadership?

Thank you to Freya Bradford, Kimberly Diggs Lauth, Jane Garthson, Andrea John-Smith, Joyce Lee-Ibarra, Rhonda Lorch, Justin Pollock, and Kelly Trusty for contributing questions for this blog post.

Links:

Freya Bradford: LinkedIn
Kimberly Diggs Lauth: Kim Lauth Consulting
Jane Garthson: Garthson Leadership Centre
Andrea John-Smith: LinkedIn
Joyce Lee-Ibarra: JLI Consulting
Rhonda Lorch: Lorch and Associates
Justin Pollock: OrgForward
Kelly Trusty: LinkedIn

We recruit our nonprofit board members, in part, for the potential represented in their personal, professional and community connections. We gravitate to their rich expertise and skills. But too often, we confine them to the boardroom and a stifling list of passive roles that do anything but engage them.

If our communities are to reach their full potential, we need to help the community leaders who govern our organizations to reach their full potential.

What’s possible, for us and those we serve, when boards are able to focus on the critically important work of nonprofit governance? Here are a few thoughts that come to mind for me:

• We have ongoing access to the deep expertise and varied talents that individual members bring to the board. We learn from their wisdom, shared freely and in the spirit of expanding our impact. They do so willingly, because they are respected and engaged in ways that are personally and professionally appropriate.

• We stretch our thinking via interaction and debate informed by the wide range of life experiences and perspectives around the boardroom table.

• We welcome – and, indeed, solicit – questions that facilitate that expanded thinking. We know those questions lead to richer, deeper, and more informed decisions as we move toward the compelling vision of the future that drives us.

• That vision, and our specific mission/role in making it happen, are equally rich and high in impact, because our board (which holds ultimate accountability for their definition and advancement) has grounded us in community need while also demanding that we reach beyond what feels possible in the limited moments of today.

• We move closer toward that vision and mission, because our board holds us accountable for programs and performance that advance them. We welcome that accountability, not only to our board but to the community that they represent.

• We engage in critical thinking – and occasionally pointed questioning – as a healthy part of that accountability process. That work begins in the boardroom, where robust and respectful debate around complex topics is the norm.

• We enjoy ever-broadening connections to new groups of stakeholders and supporters – and credibility with those groups – thanks to the personal and professional networks that our board members make accessible to us.

• We extend our impact on public policy changes required to fulfill our mission, because our board members regularly make our case with legislators, city council members, Congressional delegations, and other opinion leaders.

• We unleash on our community – and the world – a committed, passionate group of advocates devoted to us far longer than their board terms.

Now, what will we do to support our boards and help ensure that they are able to focus their gifts of time and expertise on this work?

Debra Beck, EdD, is the co-founder and coordinator of the Snowy Range Nonprofit Institute. She is a founding member of the international Study Group on Governance Relationships and Dynamics. Debra earned a doctorate in adult and post-secondary education from the University of Wyoming in 2009. Her dissertation, titled “The Practice of Generative Governance: A Case Study Exploring Board Learning in Context,” explored the factors that facilitate generative thinking and learning in board meetings. In addition to all this, Debra is a Creating the Future Fellow. Follow her work via the Laramie Board Learning Project here.

When preparing to plan, what are the most important questions to answer, to set the stage for successful and impactful planning? The experts in Creating the Future’s Facebook group for consultants to community benefit organizations have a wealth of experience in this type of work, so we asked for them to share their wisdom on this topic.

The conversation among the consultants was robust and thought-provoking. Their ideas fell into three key areas:

Foundational – The vision, mission, and values that shape the organization’s work

• Do we understand our Mission? Are we 100% committed to it (i.e., are the board and staff giving)?
• What principles do we hold so sacred that no incentive would cause us to plan in a way that would contravene those ideals? And, how can we hold fast to those principles when it might seem expeditious to turn the other way?
• Why are we doing this? Why now?
• What are the assets (e.g., team members, building, people we serve, neighborhood) we can engage to achieve our mission?
• What infrastructure will be needed to implement whatever comes out of the plan? What internal conditions must we have in place, to be able to guarantee we can accomplish whatever comes out of this plan?
• Have we clearly articulated the ethical values that underpin our work? Are they consistent with the values we want to see in the amazing community we are trying to create, and with how we operate internally? How do we express these values to our key stakeholders?
• Who else needs to be involved in making the vision come true? Have we involved them sufficiently in developing the vision?

Aspirational – The dreams and big ideas that will create the highest potential for the organization and community

• What will having a plan make possible for the organization, for us – as leaders, and for the community?
• How is planning a community engagement opportunity for us?
• What do we hope to learn as result of the planning process?
• Are we willing to really evaluate existing programs and processes and let go of them if they don’t support our mission/vision?

Procedural – The “nuts and bolts” of organizing and facilitating the planning process

• What conditions need to be in place – participants, timeframe, meeting times and locations, facilitator(s) – in order for the planning process to achieve its highest potential?
• How could we make it an ongoing part of our organization, rather than something that is episodic? What would be different about an organization that never needed to stop and plan? What would we do differently? How would that feel? If we would like that, how could this planning process position us to be in that place?

Using these suggestions as a guide, your organization can develop a list of questions you believe will be most important for your own planning preparation. Through such questioning, the stage can be set for developing a plan that will truly move both your organization and your community forward in exciting and innovative ways!

Creating the Future would like to thank the following individuals for being a part of the conversation and contributing to this blog: Susan Detwiler, Dan Duncan, Jane Garthson, Hildy Gottlieb, Pauline Urbano Hechler, Patrick Jinks, Andrea John-Smith, Rhonda Lorch, Alison Rapping, and Justin Pollock.

What would it take for employee evaluations to bring out the best in people?

Deep down, we all realize that the process of evaluation is full of possibilities, yet it often falls short of what it could be.

In preparing for a discussion on this topic at Creating the Future’s November board meeting, we asked several experts to consider that question. Here’s what they shared with us.

• Ideally, the individual will have ownership over defining what will be evaluated. In this spirit, Gayle Gifford shared  the story of a group that is involving the staff in developing the performance evaluation system they will use. Staff are being asked what they hope to learn as part of their annual evaluation and are co-designing the questions with those who will be conducting the evaluation.

• Patrick Jinks noted, “I have found staff evaluation to be the best when it is part of the continual, year-round coaching process. If a manager is a good coach, there will be no surprises at the formal, annual appraisal. Furthermore, they will more often be positive ones, because the important things are being developed as the year goes on.”

• Isaac Shalev shared that in his experience as a manager, “Thinking in sports terms, a great coach needs to win even without all-stars at every position. You’ve got to be able to bring out good performances from average personnel, and you’ve got to know when to let people go, and when to hold on to them – and often performance is only half the story. The work environment and how people fit into it plays a big role in those decisions too.”

• At times when a coaching approach may not be effective, Patrick Jinks advised the ERGO approach: clarify the Expectations, acknowledge the current Reality, identify the Gaps, and assess Options (which could include termination).

• Angie Coleman Whitley suggested that evaluation be tied to specific competencies and objectives that are derived from the job description.

From there, Creating the Future’s board began a discussion they will be continuing at their December board meeting (subscribe to our Walking the Talk blog to watch that meeting and tweet your own thoughts!):

• Rather than being short-term and focused on problems or shortcomings (policing), a performance evaluation that empowers people would be focused on what they do well and how others on the team can support them to do more of that (nurturing). The purpose would then be to create clarity around what each individual is striving to achieve and then mutually agree upon what can be done – together with others in the organization – to position them to do their best work.

• The process would allow people to reflect on where they have been and where they are and then empower them to decide what they would like to achieve. 

• The evaluation process creates the opportunity to align the individual’s goals and values with those of the organization, and to create the conditions under which each person can step into his/her potential.

In her reflections at the end of Creating the Future’s board meeting, Maria Turnbull (a participating guest at the meeting), shared that she is excited to consider how her organization can create an environment where everyone looks forward to performance evaluations, feeling empowered and excited about having such an opportunity to reflect.  “That would shift the conversation in a really positive way!”

We hope that you are similarly motivated and energized to ask these questions at your own workplace. And please share your own experiences with us here!

• What is the best evaluation you’ve ever had?
• What made it the best?
• What did that evaluation do to bring out the best in you?

It’s time for another strategic plan – yay!

Wait, that wasn’t your reaction?

Is it because you didn’t enjoy your last planning sessions? Or because that last plan didn’t really make a difference? If you are frustrated by the lack of significant results from your prior plans, and you’re not looking forward to your group’s planning time, you are far from alone.

In my decades as a planning consultant, with stints as an Executive Director and as a Board planning chair, I believe I have pinpointed one major cause. It’s starting wrong.

SWOT is a tool used by many planning pros, to analyze an organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. And while it is well-intentioned, in my experience, SWOT is actually an obstacle to good planning. Far from being tested and true, it’s a process that makes good planning way harder than it needs to be.

I’ve had everyone in the room stand up and cheer when I said we weren’t starting with a SWOT. And they’ve left at day’s end saying they had fun and felt inspired.

Why is a SWOT the wrong place to start?
SWOT roots the planning in today (or as Henry Mintzberg, the international guru of planning puts it, in your organization’s current perceptions). David Rock, author of Quiet Leadership, says that since we can only focus on one thing at a time, looking at the past actually dis-allows looking forward.

We plan everything in our lives – our careers, our education, getting to work on time –by working backward from our desired destination, EXCEPT when we plan for our organizations. Do you start your vacation planning from today (I’ll take one step towards the beach) or do you have a vision of what you want your vacation to be like, and create your plans around that vision? If you did a SWOT without such a vision, you’d have information with no context for analysis. Suppose you don’t have a passport – is that a weakness for your vacation planning? Not if you are planning to be a tourist in your own country. And if you are traveling outside the country, it’s not a weakness, it’s just something that must be addressed.

Without a shared concept of the future, planning participants cannot analyze which changes or capacity issues matter. Often, they cannot even determine which are positive and which are negative, leading to the same issues appearing as both opportunities and threats on the flip chart. People have often told me that’s when they lose faith in the entire planning process.

What to do instead
Rather than starting with an analysis of what’s not working, effective plans start by imaging the highest potential of your community. That simple step lets you clearly see what needs to change to create that kind of community. Now your steps can head in the right direction, and you can build on the strengths that matter.

Research shows it is much more effective to build on strengths than try to fix weaknesses. If something is outside your core competencies, you can think of that as an internal weakness you have to stop and fix before you can make progress. Or you can think of it as a partnership opportunity, a strength to build upon.

Other Great Reasons Not to SWOT
There are other reasons not to SWOT. Some of those include:

• SWOT saps energy by focusing on weaknesses as much or more than strengths, leaving less energy for creative, innovating thinking. SWOT can be exhausting.

• People often leave a SWOT session feeling hopeless, believing the cause they are passionate about has almost no chance of succeeding. I’ve had organizational leaders tell me they get as far as their car, then sit there sobbing. The list of weaknesses and threats are usually three times longer than the strengths and opportunities. Why would we design an exercise to make our people depressed?

• Because SWOTs mean exposing weaknesses, they are almost always done internally, without community engagement. We can’t let anyone see the dirty laundry! Planning with the community then keeps those internal issues hidden.

• SWOT hijacks potential and possibilities with all the reasons a project won’t work or reasons why we can’t do it. That mobilizes the wrong kind of energy.

• SWOT can be used by a control freak for ulterior motives, as all the group planning time and energy gets used up in what is supposed to be only the start of the plan. With no time left for group planning, an ill-intentioned Executive Director can then draft and finalize the plan alone. I have sadly seen this happen more than once.

On top of all that, SWOT can be a waste of money. In Strategy Safari, Henry Mintzberg references a study of companies that used SWOTs “yet not one subsequently used the output within the later stages of the strategy process.”  Can you afford to waste the time of your board and senior staff, and maybe the cost of a consultant, on something with so little upside and so much downside?

Sadly, I have seen organizations that did use the results, and that proved to be worse. They rooted their whole plan in fixing the internal weaknesses in the SWOT. The plan then did zero to move the org forward, because you can’t build strength by aiming at weakness.

Don’t think that because I won’t SWOT, I am not a realist. I strongly believe in understanding the external and internal environments for our organizations. There are genuine conditions to be addressed for every organization, and plans have to include practical steps to address them. Check out the resources at creatingthefuture.org for approaches that work and don’t involve a SWOT.

In summary, when you are considering a planning approach:

• Start with the future.

• Build on the strengths that matter.

• Don’t SWOT!!!

And if you can’t convince your organization to avoid it entirely (we understand about resistance to change), move it to later in the process, where it can’t do nearly as much damage.

Many thanks to these Creating the Future fellows who contributed to the “Why Not to SWOT” list: Justin Pollock, Ann Vermel, Alexandra Peters, Lisa Humenik, Deborah Loesch-Griffin, Garth Nowland-Foreman, Kevin D. Monroe, Dimitri Petropolis, Bill Musick, Nancy Iannone and Hildy Gottlieb.

At our most recent board meeting for Creating the Future, we took time to deeply explore the role financial management, reporting, and leadership should play in the organization. As a demonstration project exploring what could be possible for all boards, we spend a fair amount of time engaged in a process talking about process. I personally think this is at the heart of leadership and creating space for process is essential to organizational success, but I found it particularly relevant here.

Many of us come to financial issues, be they our own personal ones or those of an organization with which we are involved, from a place of reactivity. We get a report or a statement showing us what has transpired and are asked to react. Let’s look at how different people react:

•  For those who consider themselves “not numbers people,” fear and embarrassment are the first reactions as they confront something unfamiliar and intimidating. Fear and embarrassment don’t generally lead to engagement and inquiry. These folks are hoping that we can quickly move on and begin talking about something else that they understand.

• For those who understand the accounting side of things, they see transactions showing how money came into and went out of the organization and what the “bottom line” looks like with regard to being in positive or negative asset to liability ratios. If things are not balancing, these people look to solutions that effect one side of the equation or the other. We cut expenses or we increase revenue. The focus is on balancing the books.

So we end up with either an ostrich, head-in-the-sand, or a terrier, going-down-the-rabbit-hole/head-in- the-dirt, response. In both cases the conversation or lack thereof being all about money.

Here’s the thing, when we lead with money (or financial reports), we predispose ourselves to thinking about the work we do as just transactional. We think in terms of buying solutions. Think about the language we hear – “what will it cost?”, “do we have enough to pay for?”, “how much do we need to raise?” This thinking separates us from the process of actually creating community benefit. Rather than “being” part of the work we are simply agents “buying” the work.

To me, leadership is a “being” activity embedded in creating change. If we are not working to change something, we don’t need to lead. We can just manage. Through my work, I’ve had the privilege of talking with many executive leaders. When asked what they believe would support the success of the organizations they serve, nearly all of them say more leadership from staff and board.  So what would make financial work less reactive and managerial and more leaderful?* Context and Process!!

Context and process are the foundations for leadership. Leaders envision something different from what it is today, consider what would make that possible, take stock of where we are today, take ownership and responsibility for making things happen, and create space for the process to play out. For financial work, this requires establishing the context and identifying the process that makes leadership possible.

So consider what financials would be the response to. What leaderful conversation would you want staff and board to be having that would naturally lead them to ask about resources – how they are engaged, how well an organization stewards them, and what it would take to grow and sustain them. In this scenario, financials are the result of active inquiry not a requisite reporting and oversight response.

For this to happen we would allow for process and would structure our conversations differently so the context gives meaning to the response. Consider a board meeting driven not by reporting, but by the following questions in the following order

• We had a hypothesis about how we could create change in our community
  • First, is everyone clear on what that is?
  •  Great, what are we seeing as results?

• Do the results and observations warrant revisiting the hypothesis?
  •  If so, what will make it more successful?
  •  What can we (those of us in this room) do that draws on our strengths to make that change possible?

• How are we doing with sustaining the work and/or allowing for change as we look to the future?
  •  Are we engaging resources (staff, volunteers, revenue, in-kind assets, board, etc.) as we expected?
  •  Are we expending resources as we expected?
  •  What can we learn about our business model (how we work to create our intended benefit/impact) from how resources have been engaged and used?
  • Do we need to adjust our model in order to maintain a healthy, sustainable organization?
    • If so, what can we do that draws on our strengths to make changes possible?

Through this line of inquiry, we continue to reinforce what all of our work is intended to make possible for our community. We are ensuring that everyone understands how we thought we could do it. Then s we delve into how well it is actually going. Asking these questions naturally leads us to asking about resources, of which money will likely be an important one. Furthermore, it will also shape how we want to see that information in order to support the questions we have. So we have created a context for the financial discussion that everyone can be a part of and we are shaping the mechanics of our reporting to be responsive to the conversations we want to have.

So it’s not about financial conversations, it’s about unleashing leadership opportunities by providing context and allowing the process to happen. In doing so, we engage more people and lead ourselves to meaningful conversations that include money, but also so much more…

* I know this is not a word, but it captures the essence of something filled with leaders and leadership.

(Note: This blog is cross posted on orgforward.net/blog)

During its December meeting (for context, see this post summarizing our November meeting, and this post announcing our upcoming January meeting), Creating the Future’s board addressed this question:

What will it take for the board – and individual board members – to hold themselves accountable for accomplishing the organization’s mission?

The result of that question was 90 minutes of powerful and energizing discussion, as the board began detailing their expectations of the board and each other.  

Those expectations are in addition to the Statement of our Values in Action adopted by the board last summer – wherein board members committed to walking the talk of the organization’s values about open participation, caring and compassion, causality and context, systems change, and what it looks like to live the Pollyanna Principles. 

From the board’s December discussion, the board of Creating the Future expects board members to…

• Prioritize Creating the Future, as an organization and as a movement for change. Prioritizing Creating the Future in their thinking, being and doing – not just during the meetings, but throughout the month, as a vital priority in the board member’s personal social impact agenda. Board members will be expected to make Creating the Future a higher and higher priority over time.

• Participate as an integral part of the team. Because one of the four pillars of Creating the Future’s mission is “convening conversation,” participation is of particular importance when it comes to conversation. Board members will expect that the board meetings are places of conversation, where each board member will be expected to actively participate.  Board members will be expected to participate more in all aspects of Creating the Future’s work over time.

• Take time. Taking time together at board meetings and between board meetings. Prioritizing time at board meetings (i.e. calendaring those meetings a year in advance and holding them sacred). Taking time to meet all the other expectations noted here.  Board members will be expected to be more mindful about “taking time” the longer they are on the board.

• Be deeply engaged, with each other, with people whose lives are touched by the organization and the movement, and with people board members know, who are not involved with Creating the Future. Be the “first follower” by connecting with others doing similar work, connecting with others who share our vision and values. Board members will be expected to become more deeply engaged over time.

• Be knowledgeable about how the organization operates, how the programs align to accomplish the mission. To not only know what “mission accomplished” will look like, but to be able to articulate, in their own words, “So, how will you accomplish that?” Board members will be expected to be more and more knowledgeable over time.

• Plan. Participate in planning, to ensure the programs are aligned to accomplish the mission, to ensure the infrastructure of the organization is sound, to ensure the staff is thriving. Board members will be expected to more deeply understand the context for and alignment of the organization’s work over time.

• Monitor and evaluate. As a board, discuss on an onoging basis what indicators would suggest we are making progress towards our mission. As individuals, monitor and evaluate our own individual progress towards meeting these expectations.

• Give to the organization, to the movement, to the community, to each other. Give not only what we have, but more importantly giving of who we are as people – participating.  “What I’m offering is in equal proportion to my passion for the change we are working towards together.”  Board members will be expected to share more of themselves with Creating the Future over time.

• Grow as a person. Creating the Future’s work is to recreate workplace practices, to naturally bring out the best in all of us, so that we can bring out the best in our world. Board members are therefore expected to grow personally (spiritually, intellectually) as a result of their being a fully participating team member on this board. Board members will expect that level of personal growth to deepen / expand over time.

In upcoming meetings, we will dig deeper into these expectations, asking, “What will it take? What will that look like? How will we know? What will we do?” That will lead neatly into bylaws that will codify these intentions, making them true guidelines for what this board is all about.

For now, we hope you will add your thoughts. What are other expectations you have found that bring out the best in board members? And if you’ve participated in Creating the Future’s board, what expectations do you particularly hope our board will codify into bylaws?

 Updating the Bylaws – three words that send shivers to the soul.  Leaders of entities that legally require bylaws quickly relegate the task to a committee (with a mix of appreciation and condolences) or to the organization’s attorney.

During its November meeting, Creating the Future’s board (along with participating guests Regina Birdsell, Heather Tunis and Allyson Hewitt) began what was supposed to be that very conversation about our own bylaws. 

What happened instead may just pave the way for a more effective and energizing approach to this otherwise tedious task.

Starting at the Beginning
Like most start-ups, Creating the Future saw our initial bylaws as “a document to be filed to receive legal status.” Our attorney crafted pretty typical start-up bylaws – strong enough to meet minimum legal standards, and flexible enough for the organization to determine what it was going to become.

Now that our board is transitioning from a start-up board (determining culture, values, vision) to leading an organization that is about to ramp up a full range of programs around the globe, it is time to re-look at the bylaws, to be sure they fit what the board is actually doing, and how the board is actually doing it.

Using the framework of high potential causality that Creating the Future uses for all its discussions, the board was prepared to go through each section asking, “What does this section make possible, and for whom? What would this section say if we were working at our best, bringing out the best in each other and everyone else?” Through that effort, we believed we would find the highest potential for those bylaws to reflect what the board wanted to achieve for the organization.

That is, until we actually dove into that discussion, at which point we realized:

At their best, bylaws provide a framework that combines the board’s legal requirements (as a bare minimum) with the board’s practices and principles and intentions.

As such, the Bylaws have the potential to be the Operations Manual for the organization’s leadership, describing what those leaders will do, how they will do it, and within what parameters. 

What that requires as a pre-requisite to discussion of bylaws, then, is that a board actually know what it will do, how it will do that, and within what parameters!

Which led to a further realization:

Without that prior discussion about the heart of a board’s work, bylaws will always be what they have been – barely pertinent legal documents that we turn to when things go wrong.  

Without that context, bylaws questions (Q: “Number of board members?”) are asked and answered in a vacuum (A: Research how many board members are effective for an organization of our size) instead of asking, “What will it take for our board to accomplish what we have committed to hold ourselves accountable for?”

Starting at the Beginning. Again.
And so, at its November meeting, our board stepped back to answer this question:

What is the highest potential of this board?

The answer that quickly arose would likely resonate with both community benefit and private benefit boards alike:

At its highest potential, Creating the Future’s board is a group of individuals holding themselves accountable for accomplishing the mission, within the guidelines of our values, towards our ultimate vision.

Accountability then begs the questions “For what?” and “To whom?”

We had already stated the answer to “For what”: Accomplishing the mission, within the guidelines of the values, towards our ultimate vision.  Everyone in attendance rallied around the image of the board as the keepers / stewards of the organization’s vision, values and mission.

So, then, to whom is the board accountable?

Participants from Twitter suggested “the members.”  With no legal “members” of the organization (per our existing bylaws), that quickly became “accountability to the moral ownership of the organization,” which is to say, accountability to the community. Accountability to the people who participate in the work and who benefit from it.  Accountability to each other.

Allyson Hewitt suggested that the board is accountable to “those who show up,” whether those people show up in person, online, in the community we are co-creating, or wherever. That felt right, reflecting the value Creating the Future places on trusting “the wisdom in the room” and bringing out the best in each other.

What Will It Take?
We know from working with Creating the Future’s causality framework that the work will now flow smoothly, as we take mindful time to consider…
• What will it take for our board to hold itself accountable to those who show up?
• What will it take for the board to hold itself accountable for accomplishing the mission?
• What will it take for the board to hold itself accountable for ensuring we are reflecting our values and vision in our work?

The result of this effort will truly describe what the board will do, how it will do that, and within what parameters.

Instead of considering bylaws requirements in a vacuum, we will be creating a living document that reflects what our board is all about, a true operations manual for our board.  

That document will clearly tell the story of what this board holds important, so that anyone reading will know what we do, how we do it, within what moral guidelines, and most importantly, why.

Stay tuned to join this ongoing conversation by watching / being part of our board meetings. Subscribe to our Walking the Talk blog to be notified of upcoming meetings!

Photo credit: Thanks to the Ford Motor Company via Wikimedia Commons for the image of the manual from – yes – 1919. Click through to read the whole manual!