Discover Leadership

Will they follow me?

2013-02-04T22:46:00.000+08:00

A leader's worst nightmare is to have nobody following. Yet, I have seen this happen time and time again when it comes to developing, communicating and implementing strategy. In my last post I underscored the importance of getting maximum buy-in at all stages of developing a strategy, and it's even important to get buy-in about the need for a strategy before that! Here are some of the methods for doing so.

Pledging Meeting

Before beginning the process of developing a strategy, it is sometimes necessary to get your people to buy-in to the need of one. This, in itself, can be something of a task, especially if some of your people feel that they’re "doing just fine, thank you very much".

It is important to paint a picture of the reasons for the need for a strategy; to give time and space for outlining recent trends, the size of the task of reaching the unsaved and the capacity for delivering compassionate care. In many cases it will be necessary to quantify decline and project where that will end up if there is not a change of direction.

Near the conclusion of this process, but before you actually begin the development of the strategy, you could consider having a pledging session.

During the session, corps members place an anonymous, unsigned, sealed envelope on the holiness table during a time of prayerful reflection.

The envelope will contain a commitment slip offering a few alternatives for them to tick boxes. They may be something like:

ð I pledge to help discover God’s vision for our corps

ð I am not yet ready to help discover God’s vision for our corps

ð I do not believe that we need to discover God's vision for our corps

This will also help the leader to confirm his informal estimate that he has sufficient buy-in to continue the visioning exercise.

Prayer Commitments

Get people who are part of the corps to commit to praying for the development of the strategy, and particularly to seek God’s direction for the corps. Ask them to feed through their answers to pray to you, so that they can be considered for collation into the strategy document.

Informal conversations

This is an effective way of getting ideas and input in the early stages, and can be quite effective because, generally, people are more forthcoming in casual conversations than they are in formal processes such as interviews and surveys.

There are some important things to be aware of, though.

1. You don’t have to talk to everyone, but you do have to get a big enough sample for it to be representative (a typical corps is too small for sample sizing calculations to be useful, so it’s down to gut feel for this) and you have to make it known that anyone can take the initiative to talk to you in this way.

2. Make sure you get a diverse range of ages, interests, gender, etc.

3. Make sure you include the people who are generally opposed to change, to your leadership, or that you find generally difficult to deal with. Miss them out now at your own peril later.

A Survey

Surveys can be a bit wooden and limited in usefulness, but if you already have the beginnings of where you might be going, they are a helpful in sorting out Option A from Options B, C or D and at the very least provide another tool for engaging people in the process.

Workshops

Workshops are, by far, my favourite tool for moving a group towards consensus. The back and forth in the room has the power to draw on bucket loads of dynamics that dealing with individuals in one-on-one discussions cannot. These dynamics can be brought into play to bring members of the group closer to agreeing on a vision statement that they are reasonably happy with. Sometimes it might get heated, and at other times it might be moving or laughter filled, but it is all grist for the mill and moves you closer to the goal. (Of course, as a leader you have to have the confidence and skills to be able to manage the dynamics in the room, but if you don’t feel confident, it’s quite OK to ask an outside facilitator to do so.)

It is often good to go into the workshop phase with an early draft on the understanding that it can be totally dismantled by the group if they choose too (It never is, but they need to know they have the right to do so.)

Circulate Final Draft

The final draft, which should be almost set in concrete, should be sent around to the stakeholders to get their final comments before taking it to your board to get official sign-off.

Board Sign-Off

Whatever level of board you work with (corps council, divisional), make sure you get a good understanding of the content and the implications. At this stage you may even have to appear over-cautious in spelling everything out, especially those aspects that will appear negative to some people; “So you understand, Bandmaster, that this means downsizing the band by 50%, right?” If people have surprises further down the track, it will always be your fault and never their own!

Now you are ready to communicate the strategy and start implementing it. These will be the subject of my next post.

How to choose your future

2012-12-30T20:15:00.000+08:00

It is easy to think that the future is thrust upon and we have little control over how it will turn out. But this is only partly true. A vision, linked to a strategic plan can define what we want our future to look like, and how to get there.

The key words here are “we” and “our”. The task of the leader is to lead her people into agreement on their vision (what they want for the section, corps, region or division) and the strategy (the overarching plan of how to get there), so she must engage as many as possible in the development process.

The vision and strategy are not made up of the the pet-subjects of one person or even a small group of people. Every stakeholder should be invited to take part in the conversation. Collectively you are trying to understand what the Spirit of God is saying to the whole group and no one has the monopoly on that! So a process of prayer, sharing ideas and discussion will lead to the development of the best vision and the strategy.

But before beginning the process, there are two fundamentals that must be in place.

Fundamental #1: High-level* buy-in on the Mission Objectives

First of all it is essential that you have a concise statement of the mission objectives and strong buy-in from the stakeholders. The mission objectives are the raison d'etre for the group.

A corps may adopt the territorial mission objectives, in fact I believe it is best if it does (more on that in a future blog perhaps), or it may develop its own, but they must be congruent with those of the broader organisation, and preferably a local expression of them.

(For examples of mission objectives go to: http://www.salvationarmy.org.tw/sa/modules/tadnews/index.php?nsn=33, and http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who-We-Are/vision-and-mission/. )

The mission objectives will form the overarching framework for the vision and the strategy. In other words, they will be fleshing out the mission objectives over the next few (I suggest three to five) years.

Fundamental #2: Almost the whole group buying-in on the need for a vision and strategy

The second stage is to get your group members to buy-in to the need to a vision and strategy. This requires some work on the leader’s part. She needs to research and prepare material that shows progress (or lack thereof) in recent years, and “sell’ the idea that a focused approach is required to achieve those things that matter. She will probably draw on some of the many scriptural injunctions for visionary thinking and behaviour.

And then . . .

Only after we have established that there is general agreement that a vision and strategic plan are required and that they should be based on the mission objectives, can we begin work. Essentially, the role of the leader is to ask the question, “What do we have to do to successfully carry out the mission objectives?”

Key questions that can drive this conversation might be:

What does God want us to do over the next five years?
What will our preferred future look like?
What do we have to do to meet the needs of the mission?
What do we have to stop doing in order to have time and resources to do meet the needs of the mission?
How will we know when we have been successful?

The overall goal of the vision and strategy development process, is to collect a mish-mash of ideas, organise them into something that will work for the group, and get buy-in for a final version of the vision and strategy. So I am going to make the methods of achieving these things the focus of my next post. After that, I will explain about communicating the strategy and implementing the strategy, two critical elements for it to work. Stay tuned!

----------------------------------------------------

*A note about buy-in: For anything new, you will never get 100% buy-in. There will always be those that are keen from the beginning, hungry for change, the radicals. There will be those somewhere in the middle that will range from ready for change if it appears to be well thought-through (the progressive) to being persuadable if there is a high chance of success (conservatives). And there are the traditional, who will resist all things new, no matter how good they are.

So the take-home message is high-level buy-in in the early stages of a project in reality means about 2/3 to 3/4 of your group, but for something like well-established mission objectives it should be much higher – around 90% or more.

What's so different about Impact?

2012-12-09T21:36:00.000+08:00

Many consulting companies claim to have solutions for NGOs and business, so why has The Salvation Army in Taiwan partnered with Impact?

Impact is a newly formed “profit for purpose” business dedicated to enhancing the effectiveness, health and capacity of NGOs in Taiwan. Impact’s Director, Steve Parker, says, “There is a lot of pressure on the not-for-profit sector to be increasingly smarter, efficient and more accountable. There is a need for development and I believe that Impact can play a significant part in that.”

As a primary partner of the Taiwan branch of one of the world’s leading NGOs (The Salvation Army) Impact has to capacity to leverage skills and competencies from around the NGO world. Using these resources, as well as those of its own in-house team, Impact offers NGOs skills development assistance so that they can better fulfil their mission.

Impact is linking NGOs with potential funders too. “We are helping the NGO sector to create income streams through businesses, fundraising and special events.” said Parker.

But that’s not all Impact is doing. Impact is able to represent NGOs, to be their voice, in contexts where they less able to do so themselves, such as in the business community, with governments and with potential funders.

Steven Parker, Impact’s Director, brings to the role a diverse set of skills from both the commercial and NGO worlds. Having been in senior management in both of these areas he is well placed to understand the needs of both NGO’s and of their corporate sponsors. And, being an Australian who has lived for nineteen plus years in Taiwan gives him a good understanding of the local and international environment.

Along with many in the non-profit sector, Parker recognises that the social programme and policy environment in Taiwan has potential for growth, and will be one of the many voices calling for development in this area.

When asked what is meant by a “profit for purpose” business, Parker said, "Our business is not based on maximising profits for shareholders. Of course, we have to be viable, but we balance that with other, broader, goals; like building up the NGO sector. As well as that, all the profits we make, beyond those needed to operate the business, are donated back into the not-for-profit sector".

If you are an NGO looking for ways to develop capacity or a business looking for ways to develop your philanthropy programme, I think it could be well worth your while giving Steven Parker a call.

Steven Parker’s phone number: +886 988 061725

Email: stevenparker@taiwanimpact.com

Breaking the Creativity Drought

2012-12-03T22:34:00.000+08:00

When an organisation is getting on in years, it can be prone to some stuck thinking styles. Add this to some national or local cultures that are somewhat conservative and you have all the ingredients for a creativity drought.

How can the creativity drought be broken?

Brainstorming is a technique for getting great creative ideas out of a group of people who, for one reason or another, are not known for their creativity.

Rarely practiced at its best, even in more progressive settings, brainstorming is the first stage of an ideas generation process. It can be the start of:

Finding solutions to difficult problems,
Stretching beyond small thinking,
Overcoming “stuckness”, and
Getting buy-in to new approaches.

The process in a nutshell

1. Ideas are generated,

2. Ideas are sorted, categorised and refined,

3. The relative merit of each is assessed,

4. A viable way forward is developed.

The psychological environment must be safe

However, many brainstorming sessions do not reach their full potential because one or more of the crucial principles are not adhered to. For a brainstorming session to work well, the following “group rules” have to be enforced:

1. There are no bad ideas,

2. Everyone in the room is encouraged to share, regardless of age, position, level of expertise or seniority,

3. All ideas are received with gratitude and affirmation,

4. No one is put down for an idea that isn’t so good.

The rules of engagement

For brainstorming to work effectively, the facilitator must create the right psychological environment from the beginning. Here’s how:

1. Announce the group rules (as above) before the session begins and get commitment from everyone in the room.

2. Enforce the group rules as the meeting progresses, being ready (even seeking out the opportunity) to quickly jump on someone who breaks one of the group rules.

3. Ask key questions to get ideas flowing.

4. If there is a degree of “stuckness”, it is often because people cannot see beyond their immediate experience, so try an obtuse line of questioning such as placing the problem in a colony on Mars, or asking how we would sabotage our project if we were the opposition. Once the discussion becomes fluid, draw out some principles and bring the discussion to the concrete.

5. If there is a greater degree of stuckness, ask obscure questions with multiple choice questions. Get members of the group to justify their answers. (Should the rocket to Mars be petrol-powered, nuclear-powered, or powered by oxygen fuel? Why?)

6. Once you get going, record all the input from around the room, giving it equal value at first. All ideas are considered worthy. None are rejected, even if they seem unsuitable. No rejection, criticism or ridicule of ideas is countenanced. All ideas are written up so they are visible to all (whiteboard, butcher’s paper).

7. Begin to focus in on those solutions that seem to be the most viable to the group.

8. These can be sorted, categorised, and shaped into a solution or range of possible solutions.

Absolute stuckness requires the removal of an elephant (or person) in the room

If, after going through approaches 3 to 5 above, there is still stuckness in the room, you will probably have a good feel for what might be causing it.

This is where a great deal of sensitivity is called for. Whatever you do could go either way and you might end up with an outstanding failure or resounding success. You may decide to name the elephant in the room. (“Clearly there is a lot of reticence in the group. May I ask what it’s about? Is it because there is still some tension about the huge mistake that costs thousands of dollars last week?”)

Allow the group to give this some time, but not too much, then try to extract a commitment from each one to put aside their feelings on the issue for the rest of the session.

However, by far the most frequent reason that people do not speak up is because it is counter to the organisational culture and there is someone in the room who would (they perceive) disapprove and bring about consequences. He is usually (though not always) one of the management team.

In this case, I call a five minute break, during which I privately explain to the manager what is going on and ask him to leave. When the meeting reconvenes, I simply say that he had to leave and won’t be able to continue with the session. Usually, the atmosphere in the room changes dramatically. Everyone understands that you will report to management team, but they know that it will only be about the outcome of the meeting, not what individual members said. They are confident they cannot be picked off (as is prone to happen in some dysfunctional stuck workplaces).

Changing the world one brainstorm at a time

If brainstorming is practised widely at frontline and middle management levels in a stuck organisation, it can be an important tool in the armoury for changing the nature of the stuck organisation from the bottom up. In the long run, rational managers cannot resist the overwhelming force of quality ideas and grass-roots opinion based in practical experience from the frontline.

(Picture: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net)

Emotional safety of the team - It's your job, Leader!

2012-11-18T23:27:00.000+08:00

In an online chat group recently I suggested that part of the leader’s role is to create an emotionally safe team environment, and was quite surprised to read an opinion attempting to debunk my statement.

Could a thinking leader doubt that it is part of her role to create emotional safety for her team? The correlation between an unhappy workforce and loss of productivity is a given, so how does emotional safety feed into this equation? Besides, what is an emotionally safe environment for a team?

Perhaps it’s easier to start with what it isn’t.

What an emotionally safe environment doesn’t have:

The threat of humiliation for expressing opinions and ideas,
Name-calling or ridiculing,
Back-stabbing,
A blame culture,
Dummy spits,
Manipulative behaviours.

What an emotionally safe environment does have:

Valuing and protecting of the dignity of the team members,
Cooperation,
Consistent, fair and transparent performance management,
team members who listen to each other,
Interactions that are respectful, even during conflict.

How does a team get to be like this?

Teams like this do not just happen. They get this way because the leader manages the team culture. In fact leaders of emotionally safe teams are (usually intuitively) doing a combination of three things . . .

1. Modelling behaviours that promote emotional safety,
2. Censuring behaviours that are destructive to the effectiveness of the team and the people in it,
3. Rewarding behaviours that are constructive to the effectiveness of the team and the people in it.

Modelling behaviours that promote emotional safety

There are many things that a leader can do to model the promotion of emotional safety, but three of the most critical areas are performance management, conduct in meetings, and casual interactions.

When objectivity, calmness and the willingness to listen are the characteristics of a disciplinary encounter, team members emerge from it far more robust and able to lift their game than if they have received an irrational battering of their self-esteem. When the leader lacks objectivity, has an angry outburst and does not listen to what the team member has to say in his defence, the scene is set for disquiet, discontent and gossiping.

In meetings, the leader's tight control of her own and the other members’ behaviour, allowing no dummy-spits, hobby horses, grandstanding and overbearing stances creates an environment in which members becoming increasingly ready to propose ideas and express opinions. On the other hand, allowing these things to happen, make the team meetings a negative space that everyone will dread.

When the leader is in touch with each member of the team’s work, the pressure of their workload, the challenges they face, the victories they celebrate, and she communicates her concern and appreciation, she is modelling a behaviour that team members can adopt with each other. When she doesn’t do these things, the absence can lead to team members feeling unappreciated and undervalued.

Censuring behaviours that are destructive and rewarding behaviours that are constructive

Not all conflict is destructive, but I still find myself being surprised by the number of people I encounter who cannot argue constructively. Here are some the characteristics of a destructive argument.

An argument that is destructive is one in which:

The issues get lost in extreme emotional overlay,
The antagonists are not open to a compromise resolution,
There are elements such as name-calling, ridicule and recruiting others into the conflict.

The leader of the emotionally safe team will not only arbitrate the dispute, but censure behaviours that are destructive. She will challenge the dummy-spits and other inappropriate behaviours and she will encourage and affirm behaviours that deal with the conflict in mature and helpful ways.

She will reward:

Argument that is calm, rational and linear,
Respect of the antagonists for one another, even though they may be deeply divided on an issue,
Antagonists who listen to each other's point of view,
Willingness to seek a compromise situation.

A safe emotional environment means that people are not tense and anxious about their workplace relationships. They can focus on the work of the team. They have no vested interest in being secretive, detached or non-cooperative. In short, they function better as individuals and as a team.

(Photo: www.freedigitalphotos.net)

Statistics and Meetings: How boring!

2012-11-12T22:10:00.001+08:00

At training events, I often make jokes based on humankind’s dislike of statistics and meetings and I always get a laugh. Why? Because the hatred of statistics and meetings is multi-cultural and almost universal.

Although we claim it’s because they’re boring, I suspect the real reason is because they reveal the true facts about our performance and effectiveness. If we fear that we’re not up to speed, we prefer to keep it hidden!

But statistics and meetings are two of the leader’s most important tools for keeping his team accountable. They’re tools to get the job done.

Not all meetings are equal

Having said that, not all meetings are effective as accountability tools. Indeed, some never have the intention of being so. Others try to be but fail. So what are the elements of a good accountability meeting?

What a good accountability meeting looks like

Effective accountability meetings will have most of the following elements.

ü It will take place on a regular basis (Most of mine are fortnightly),

ü Each meeting will be followed up with a list of action points, with deadlines and the person responsible,

ü Everyone will get a copy of the action points within a day or so of the meeting,

ü The list of action points forms the basis of the discussion for the next meeting, with new items added to the list as they arise,

I have found that, with these simple elements in place, nearly all of the action points will be completed by the deadline.

How it works psychologically: Social sanctions and social rewards

Most people want to appear professional and effective in the workplace. However, if they turn up to a meeting and their allocated task has not been done, they experience some embarrassment (a social sanction). The desire to be regarded as effective on one hand and to avoid the social sanction (often unspoken) associated with not “pulling your weight” on the other, are often enough to keep performance on track.

On the positive, when they are able to sit in a meeting declaring that they have met their responsibility, the achievement is acknowledged, at least implicitly, (social reward) and they feel a degree of satisfaction.

(Having said all that, some people are naturally less responsive to the feelings and opinions of others - known as poor self-monitors - and these may need extra nudging by the team leader.)

Dealing with delays and poor performance

Delays in completion of tasks sometimes occur due to genuine reasons outside the control of the team member. Then it is the responsibility of the leader to:

1. Discern the real reasons from the excuses, and then

2. Give direction on how to proceed under the changed (behind schedule) circumstances.

Keep it safe

Whatever the case, it is important that the leader maintains an emotionally safe environment in the meetings, even when he has to tell off members of the team. This means allowing only objectivity and solution-focused behaviours from everyone in the team, and not allowing blame-shifting and name-calling. It is about rewarding behaviours that enhance team cohesion and good performance and censuring behaviours that are harmful to cohesion and performance.

We’re about people not numbers!

Despite humankind’s aversion to statistics (with the possible exception of social work professors) they really do help us to get the job done.

In the human services field (and especially the spiritual nurture field) we hate to reduce our work to numbers because it seems to be debasing our clients or pastoral flock. But a simple and easily-collected set of statistics, while not telling the whole story, can provide indicators of growth or decline, effectiveness or ineffectiveness, success or failure. These indicators can provide the beginning of the conversation for rectifying a problem or recognising good performance.

The numbers that we collect should be simple, as few as possible, and easily understood. Further, they should be set next to the benchmark expectation for each number.

Here are some examples that have value in the real world of human services:

For	Example of Numbers	Benchmark
Case Workers	percentage of time spent in contact with clients	60%
	Reduced drug use in clients	30%¹
	Improved social functioning	70%¹
	Improved familial connection	50%¹
Social Workers	Clients in Caseload	20 – 25 clients²
	Outgoing referrals	7¹
	Incoming referrals	3¹
Corps officers	Number of persons attending Sunday meeting	10% growth pa
	New soldiers and adherents	10% growth pa

¹These are not real figures, but are for illustrative purposes only. They vary according to the nature of the client group, aims of the service, etc.

²This is based on the worker seeing each client once a week.

How it works psychologically

Recognition and achievement are the two greatest workplace motivators. By making a clear statement about what performance is sought the team member understands how she may achieve both recognition and achievement. She will put less time, creativity and energy into activities that do not support the goals and more time, creativity and energy into activities that will. The old adage, “You get what you measure” really is true.

But wait, there’s more!

If you still hate statistics and meetings, then let me throw in the complimentary steak knives . . .

The synergy of using both regular meetings and numbers to keep people accountable is very powerful. When your team member is looking toward the next meeting and she knows that she has met the benchmarks she feels confident, strong and effective (which she is)!

Even the negative is positive with good simple accountability tools

Of course it’s not always sweetness and light. There are times when the leader is going to have to address poor performance. It’s so much easier when he can point to the numbers and the lists of action points and say clearly and concisely, “This is what we expected, this is how we explained it, and this is where you let us down.”

Even performance management becomes easier with good statistics and meetings.

8 Excuses for not Developing Leaders

2012-09-30T21:16:00.000+08:00

In the last post we looked at some of the ways that leaders rationalise not developing other leaders, focusing on one of the most common excuses, the mistaken belief that they are too busy to train up leaders.

But this is not the only “reason” that leaders use to justify to themselves and others, why developing leaders is not a good idea.

They will see the inner workings of what I do and will find out I’m not as good as I look.
They may turn out to be better than me.
They may want to take over my job.
I must have exclusivity of some things to demonstrate my higher status as the “the boss”.
I don’t have time for training others.
Only ordained ministers can do what I do.
My congregation members are all too busy to take on leadership roles.
They won’t be able to do it well enough.

Excuse #6: Only ordained ministers can do what I do

Yeah right! The Church in some parts of the world is conditioned to (falsely) regard ministers as a special breed apart that has the exclusive rights to preaching and certain other tasks.

This is more about feeding egos (of the leaders) than it is nurturing souls. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that officers or pastors are in a class above the rest of Christians. They do not have the divine right to carry out certain duties that others cannot. In fact the opposite is true. According to the New Testament writers, all Christians form the “royal priesthood of all believers” (1 Peter 2:9), are expected to preach (1 Tim 4:13, 1 Tim 5:17, 2 Tim 4:2), and to exercise a variety of other ministry gifts including prophesying, teaching, encouraging and leadership (Romans 12:6-8).

If an officer is not developing these gifts and abilities in the people around him, he may be standing in the way of the Holy Spirit.

Excuse #7: My congregation members are all too busy to take on leadership roles

There may or may not be some truth to this. Only an honest chat and an accurate assessment of their capacity to give their time will answer that. Having said that, I have observed that often the people who give the most time are those that have the least of it. I have seen this time and time again in corps, churches, service clubs, sports clubs and community groups across several cultures. Perhaps, at least for some people, this is more a question of commitment to serve than it is time. It seems that the old adage “If you want a job done ask a busy person” has some truth to it.

Excuse #8: They won’t be able to do it well enough

Again, an informed assessment of their skills and background will answer this question, notwithstanding the propensity of some leaders to expect the least, to be Theory X thinkers.

Here’s how

So, here's how to get started choosing and training your leaders.

Identify the potential leaders in your corps and work alongside them, try them out to ascertain their capacity. Do people respond to their leadership? Have they got “the goods” spiritually speaking? Do they have the capacity to learn new skills and the underpinning knowledge required? Can other leaders in the corps respect them as peers and appreciate their potential? Don’t announce your intention to develop them as a leader just yet. Wait until you are sure before doing so.

When you appoint a soldier to a local officer* position introduce her to the idea that this is a leadership position, one that will carry extra responsibilities, not just those immediately linked to their specialist role. Each and every local officer should be able to lead, preach and pastor.

From the very beginning of her local officership, let her know that you will coach and train her in the skills of leadership. Teach her how to preach (Discover Leadership posts "Public Speaking - Making it Look Easy 1-7" can form the basis of a ready-to-use training course, and this post will give you a great training model that you can use to teach your people how to preach, lead meetings and to pastor to people.)

In your own leadership, model the leadership behaviours you want your trainee to emulate, and explain the principles of what you are doing from time to time.

Give your new leader opportunities to practice these activities under you supervision, and provide feedback afterwards. Be clear, concise and constructive. Do not expect perfection, but look for (and reward) continual improvement.

Finally, appoint her to take over one day when you are going to be absent. Don’t wait for the day when she is 100% perfect. (Were you 100% perfect when you did your first preach? I doubt it!) don't wait for the day when she is 100% confident. Get her started.

Spend some time helping her get ready for the big day. Assist her with practical and spiritual preparation. Provide the opportunity for debrief afterwards. If you have someone who can observe her and give objective feedback ask them to do so.

Depending on the experience and spiritual maturity of the trainee, you could have her fully up-to-speed within one to two years.

Developing leadership skills in people around you will produce a cadre of people who can deputise whenever you are away, can support you to carry the burden of leadership and who will collectively be a much richer and capable local officership team.

*Local Officer = A lay leader in The Salvation Army, somewhat akin to a deacon or elder in other churches or NCO in the military. It is a volunteer (unpaid) position.

Dr Evil and Mini-Me: A model for leadership development?

2012-09-23T19:07:00.000+08:00

Austin Powers’ arch-enemy Dr Evil's miniature version of himself, Mini-Me* was created to do everything that Dr Evil did, in the exactly the same way that he did it.

Was he on to something? A key role of every leader is to develop other leaders, yet so few leaders (and especially Salvation Army Officers) seem to do so. Perhaps we think it’s because we don’t have time, or maybe it’s because of one of the other common justifications. Of course, there is some cost but, as any leader who is in the habit of developing other leaders will tell you, the benefits far outweigh the costs.

The Eight Most Common Excuses for not Developing Leaders

Why is it that so many leaders are reluctant to develop good leadership around them? Here are just some of the expressed and unexpressed reasons I have heard and observed:

They will see the inner workings of what I do and will find out I’m not as good as I look.
They may turn out to be better than me.
They may want to take over my job.
I must have exclusivity of some things to demonstrate my higher status as the “the boss”.
I don’t have time for training others.
Only ordained ministers can do what I do.
My congregation members are all too busy to take on leadership roles.
They won’t be able to do it well enough.

Of course, when exposed to the cold light of day, many of these excuses seem weak and self-absorbed, even as we laugh at ourselves for unconsciously holding them. But one of these deserves a little more attention.

Excuse #5: I don’t have time for training others.

This is a very seductive message for people who are running at close to capacity most of the time. But let’s stop for a moment and do the maths.

Let’s say I work about 60 hours a week, but I want to train someone to do everything I do, in the way that I do it (an unlikely scenario, but bear with me for the sake of the exercise). He can watch what I do for the whole week and it would cost me no time at all.

But I want to do better than that so I spend a few minutes with him at the beginning of each task explaining it. During the task I may stop to explain from time to time, and at the end I may re-cap. This whole process may make the task 10% to 25% longer. Let’s be pessimistic and say it adds another 15 hours (25%) to the working week.

To enhance his learning further, I decide to have a fortnightly mentoring session with him. The session will go for 3 hours and I will have to put in about 1 hour of preparation and another hour of writing up the notes afterwards. That’s a total of 5 hours per fortnight or 2.5 hours per week added to my workload.

Now, on Day 1 of the training, I realise that as I am planning my day for two people, rather than just myself, so I need to be a bit more organised. I put an extra half-hour into my daily time-management planning, but because I am better organised actually gain 1 hour per day in productivity. That’s a gain of 5 hours on the week.

Also on the first day, I realise that my trainee is keen to do more than just watch, so I can give him less skilled routine tasks straight away. Even before the training has really begun he can save me at least an hour a day by doing tasks such as photocopying, running to the post office, attending to routine emails, etc. (And an hour a day is really a pessimistic estimate!) That’s another 5 hours a week I have saved.

So even at the end of the first week, before the training has really begun, the whole exercise has cost me much less than two extra hours per day.

First Week of Training

	The hours I work	Cost to me in hours
	Ordinary Working Week	60
Add	He watches me work	0
Add	Explanations along the way	15
Add	Mentoring Sessions	2.5
Add	Extra time management	0.5
Minus	Better organisation gains	5
Minus	Trainee doing routine tasks	5
	Total Hours of work for me	68

But this is only in the first week of training, and by the second week the trainee is able to carry out at least two hours of unsupervised tasks per day, which means it is getting close to actually giving me more time. Certainly, within a month, the break-even figure will be passed.

How about in six months? Here’s a likely scenario.

After 6 months

	The hours I work	Cost to me in hours
	Ordinary Working Week	60
Add	He watches me work	0
Add	Explanations along the way	6
Add	Mentoring Sessions	2.5
Add	Extra time management	0.5
Minus	Better organisation gains	5
Minus	Trainee doing more complex tasks	20
	Total Hours of work for me	44

Explanations along the way have reduced to 10% of my time, and the trainee could be doing up to 1/3 of the tasks I was formerly doing. This frees me up with another 16 hours a week to expand the ministry. How exciting!

The same principles apply on a task-by-task basis. If you are to train someone to preach, pastor, teach or carry out any other ministry, it costs no more than about 10% to 25% extra time in the beginning, and ends up releasing some of your time.

Not convinced yet? In my next post I will address Excuses 6, 7 and 8. But in the meantime reflect on these emotional, spiritual and practical reasons why developing a leader is good, not just for the trainee, but for you.

(Click on diagram for full size version.)

*Image above: Mike Meyers as Dr Evil and Verne Troyer as Mini-Me - Copyright Warner Brothers

Résumé Writing – What the Employer Sees

2012-09-15T21:10:00.000+08:00

This post is not really about leadership, but a friend recently asked me to coach her on résumé writing so, having put in the work, I thought why not share it with a wider audience. So here you go.

Sell, sell, sell, but play nicely

The point of a résumé is to sell yourself enough so that you will get an interview, so you need to show the employer enough of yourself to make a good impression. If you get to an interview, it becomes your second opportunity to sell yourself a bit further.

A numbers game

Sending out résumés is a numbers game. Only about 2% of résumés lead to an interview, so you must be prepared to send many, but every one of them must be personalised to the employer’s needs. An employer recognises a broadcast résumé in the first few seconds, and only the gracious ones will keep reading.

Good résumés, with well-managed follow-up, can increase your likelihood of an interview from 2% to about 20%, so it’s well worth learning techniques to create a favourable impression.

The sad reality is that most employers (myself included) rarely spend more than a few minutes on the first reading of each résumé. We want to be able to assess quickly whether or not the person could be the one we are looking for.

The Two Basic Questions

Every employer is looking for an answer to two basic questions, and all other questions serve to help answer these two. They are:

1. Can this person do the job (competencies)?
2. Will this person fit into my team, branch or organisation (values alignment)?

What turns me on in a résumé . . .

As an employer, here are a few of the things that I look for in a résumé, and some of the things that research evidence says are effective in creating a good impression.

ü The résumé sells the competencies and character of the candidate to me succinctly, clearly and quickly. It is easy to skim read to get the information I want within a few minutes. The candidate makes sure that every word counts.

ü It is well set out, typed on size 12 Arial font or similar, is adequately spaced and makes use of bullet points, all of which make for easy reading.

ü It has a heading with the applicant’s name, address, phone number, e-mail and photo prominently displayed, and each page is numbered.

ü The applicant displays an understanding of my organisation and shows that he/she is aligned to its values.

ü The résumé has a reverse chronological record of employment, education and significant voluntary service with two or three sentences explaining each position. These explanations will draw attention to measurable achievements, rather than just position/status only. For example: “Oversighted a team of 17 operatives all over Taiwan and turned around the trend in declining sales from NT$1,830,000 to NT$2,010,000 in two years”. Most employers work on the premise that previous history is an indicator of future performance, so let them see your actual experience.

ü It has a list of the skills that have actually been practiced by the candidate. Some of these could be included under each of the positions, but my preference is for a separate list. I find it easier to skim read.

ü The candidate avoids statements that everyone uses like “A team player”. I actually groan inwardly when I read this. It is meaningless, and when I have asked about it in interview, applicants have often turned out not to have worked in a team environment. If you really are a team player, it is better to say “Experience of working in teams”, but be prepared to speak to it in the interview. The interviewer will be looking for how you handled conflict in the team, and how you used the synergy of the team to get better results.

ü If there are any gaps in your work history, put in a very brief note of explanation, or employers will think the worst (unemployable, in prison, drug problem, chronic illness). A sentence like “Time off for overseas travel” will cover it, but be honest. Don’t say “Home-schooling my children” when you couldn’t get a job. If your absence from the workforce is problematic, remain silent on it in the résumé, but be prepared to speak honestly about it in the interview, if asked. (Most employers will detect if you are fudging.)

ü The résumé will include some information about what is important to the candidate, how he/she spends her spare time, etc. This will give me an understanding of the kind of person he/she is (helping to answer basic question 2 above).

ü The names and phone numbers of previous employers from whom I can ask for a reference. If I cannot readily get good quality references I will almost certainly abandon the candidate, even if he/she presented a good résumé and performed well in the interview. If it cannot be confirmed by an “outside” party it could be faked.

Pretentious Trends that are Meaningless

There are a few trendy things that seem to be coming up in résumés more and more in recent years. Personally, I do not find them helpful, just rather pretentious. They don’t help me to answer the two essential questions “can this person do the job?” and “Will he/she fit into my team?”

The first of these is the personal employment objective. I do not believe it is easy to honestly disclose one’s employment objective. I Think an applicant is more likely to give the employer wants to hear rather than “To become CEO of the company” or “To gain experience in this job so I can get a better one”, or even “To earn money to live”. This whole idea attracts dishonesty and I don’t take any notice of them, nor do other employers that I know.

Another is the personal mission statement. Let’s be honest, how many people go through life on a personal mission. Unless you are an evangelist, social worker, medical missionary, a Salvation Army officer or something similar you’re not likely to be on a mission, so where is your mission statement going to come from?

Covering Email

Each time you send your résumé, include a covering email. The purpose of the covering email is to:

Demonstrate that you can communicate with professional courtesy, and
Sell yourself enough to motivate the employer to open your résumé.

In a covering email, I expect to find . . .

ü An introductory statement about the reason for your email. Give the name of the job and where you saw it advertised.

ü A paragraph of about three or four sentences that briefly capture your main selling points. I look for evidence of experience, competencies and values alignment. You could throw in one major achievement here, but don’t be too verbose.

ü A paragraph about how you may be contacted and your availability (Make it as easy as you can for the employer).

ü A request for an interview, and a courtesy comment about looking forward to their response.

ü Correct grammar and spelling, and a warm and upbeat style throughout. (In Taiwan it is understood that applicants are using English as a second language so there is some latitude with this, but this would disqualify you from getting an interview in most English speaking countries.)

ü The email should be short and to the point.

Follow-Up

If you follow up with a phone call a few days later the chance of getting an interview increases dramatically.

(The image in this post is provided by freedigitalphotos.net.)

How to Recruit and Keep Volunteers (Even in the most Uninviting Workplaces)

2012-09-08T20:50:00.000+08:00

Despite the negativity of some managers about using volunteers, the rewards can be great.

However, you must take a different approach to managing them than you would paid employees. At least that is the case in some respects. In others, they should be managed exactly as you would employees.

In my last post I outlined some of these differences and similarities and here I want to show you a system of managing volunteers, from recruitment right through to termination, that really works. My colleagues and I developed and used this model for managing volunteers for an extremely difficult work environment; a sobering-up centre. Working through the night with people who are abusive, vomiting and at risk of life-threatening withdrawal symptoms is not everyone’s cup of tea, but we maintained a volunteer programme of 20 to 30 people who supported our professional staff.

Appoint a Volunteer Coordinator

One of the first things you should do is appoint a volunteer coordinator. She could be a volunteer herself, but will need to have some basic management and organisation skills and an upbeat, outgoing personality. She will need to be available for four to eight hours per week and will take on much of the practical management of the volunteers. (If you’re just starting out on a volunteer programme you can do this yourself until you find the right person, but be aware of the extra impost on your time.)

Work on developing an effective and reproducible recruitment programme

You have to come to terms with the fact that there is a high attrition rate at every stage of the recruitment, selection, induction and maintenance phase of the volunteer relationship. (Even if you do all the right things to care for your volunteers, attrition is always high. This is not a reflection on your management – it’s just the nature of things.)

After some experimentation, our recruitment programme settled down to the following steps:

We placed a small (but relatively expensive) advertisement in the city-wide newspaper and took about 50 to 60 inquiries,
We invited them to an information night and supper, and had about 25 to 35 attendees,
Around 15 to 20 signed up for volunteer service on the night or in the days that followed,
These were put through an induction course which included half a day in the training room, being rostered into a series of 5 training shifts, and completing a journal of their experiences of each shift,
10 to 12 volunteers would complete the course, but some of them were weeded out by us as part of the selection process,
Those that got through this stage were rostered into the activities of the centre, each one committing to at least one shift a fortnight,
The whole process was repeated three or four times a year, and in this way we were able to maintain an establishment of about 20 to 30 volunteers.

Clearly define the volunteer relationship

Each volunteer received a position description, volunteer guidelines, a volunteer agreement, as well as other material defining the nature of the relationship between them and the centre, and the expectations on both sides. (This link will take you to the guidelines and agreement that we are currently using in Taiwan. Feel free to plagiarise with pride.)

Develop a volunteer community and celebrate volunteers with non-financial rewards

About once a quarter, we had a volunteer event that would affirm the contribution of the volunteers.

Sometimes it would be an event just for them, such as a meal and movie night, and sometimes it would be to an occasion to show them off to the rest of the team, who also need to be reminded of their value from time to time. Awards, gifts and appreciation certificates had an important part to play in such events.

Volunteers should get all the benefits that paid employees do

If the paid employees get access to tee shirts, meals on duty, Hep B vaccinations, whatever, the volunteers should be getting them too. This is important to send the message that they are valued members of the team.

Performance manage volunteers in a forthright, but respectful and professional, way

One of the things that seems to freak out some managers of volunteers is the thought of performance managing them. But actually, like most of us, volunteers respond best with professional candid approach. A performance management interview of a volunteer should not be significantly different to that of an employee. The legal restrictions may be lighter, but a firm and frank, solution-focused approach will usually enhance the commitment of the volunteer and the quality of his work.

Clarify and validate the volunteer’s departure

Many volunteers are embarrassed about leaving after a relatively short period, so they just quietly avoid getting rostered on in the hope they will be forgotten. Of course this sets up a dynamic where it is difficult for them to return should they want to sometime in the future. Having spent resources on recruiting and training a volunteer, it would be best to have the door open to her return.

We tried to not let this "quietly slipping away" happen, and if a volunteer had not been rostered on for more than a month or so, we would have a conversation affirming that it was OK to leave, and the door is open for her to come back.

Understand the reasons for high turnover and accept is as part of the cost of doing business

Coming to terms with the reasons why turnover is high (compared to that of employees) will help you to appreciate that, despite this, volunteers are great value and a volunteer programme is well worth the effort. These are just some of the reasons:

Left to start paid employment (I am still amazed at the number of long term unemployed people who enter paid employment after only a short period of volunteer work),
We liked them so much we hired them for one of our paid positions (happened more times than I can count),
Went off to do a qualification in human services so they could advance in the field,
Found that our type of work was too challenging for them (it was very in-your-face),
Had exorcised their ghosts (many do this kind of work because they had a parent who was an alcoholic, or had some other brush with alcoholism or other drug abuse, and it helps them reconcile with their past).

By being proactive to leave the door open for a return was a real bonus for the centre. On several occasions, a year or two later after leaving, the volunteer would present as a candidate for a (paid) position. In the intervening time, they built on the skills we had taught them, gained more, and came back to us with quite a nice package of experience and competencies, as well as a real affection for the centre that got them started.

Volunteers are not free - But they are amazing value!

If we’re talking strictly about financial recompense, it is true that we don’t pay volunteers. But there are costs involved and they need to be understood and budgeted for.

Advertising for recruitment, management time and appreciation events are not insignificant costs, and you can reasonably expect these to add up to 10% or 20% of what it would cost to have these volunteers on payroll. But even at this rate, they are still great value simply in terms of cold hard cash.

But of course the real value of volunteers is not just the work they do, but they people they are. It is the intangible value-adding that they bring to the workplace in terms of raised levels of enthusiasm, greater commitment to the mission, and fresh ideas and challenges to staleness. And having a cadre of workers who are “bigger” than the office politics that all organisations suffer from is invaluable.

So, what’s stopping you from starting a volunteer programme today?

Managing volunteers is not like herding cats (despite what some managers will tell you)!

2012-08-29T15:29:00.000+08:00

(This image: Source unknown)

I never cease to be amazed at the number of leaders, officers and social programme managers who will not use volunteers. They insist that it is all too hard and it can’t possible work in their situation.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. In an NGO, there are very few situations (if any) that the contribution of volunteers will not enhance.

But they do require managing in a different way to employees. The usual assumptions about employment dynamics do not apply – and I think this is the real reason why some managers don’t want to take on volunteers. It’s not about the situation; it’s about their willingness to change their management style.

What are some of the differences and similarities between managing employees and volunteers?

Managing Employees	Managing Volunteers
The relationship is defined by a financial arrangement	The relationship is defined by “soft” issues such as passion for the cause, loyalty to the leader, or desire to build experience and skills
Employees tends to be more stable and have lower turnover	Volunteers tends to be less stable and higher turnover
Most employees are full-time	Most volunteers are part-time
The manager’s ultimate leverage against poor performance is dismissal leading to financial loss	Dismissal does not lead to financial loss, but will result in other losses
Long term employees are in danger of becoming ”ho-hum” about the work	Enthusiastic volunteers tend to inject a degree of passion and idealism into the workplace
Recruitment and retention is perceived to be easier because of the open employment market dynamics	Recruitment and retention is perceived to be more difficult because both the dynamics of the volunteer market and capacity of the applicants are somewhat hidden and poorly understood
Some employees do not need to be “sold” on the mission to function well and stay in the organisation	Volunteers need to be “sold’ on the mission to function well and to stay in the organisation
Employees’ motivation is strengthened by recognition and being entrusted with challenging tasks	Volunteers’ motivation is strengthened by recognition and being entrusted with challenging tasks
Some employees bring specialist skills, perspectives and experience to the work	Some volunteers bring specialist skills, perspectives and experience to the work
Employees have statutory rights under labour laws	Volunteers have some legal rights in most jurisdictions, but they also have the moral right to be treated with equity and fairness
Employees have the legal right to protection under equal opportunity and health and safety standards	Volunteers have the legal right to protection under equal opportunity and health and safety standards
Employees need a viable, fair and accessible grievance process	Volunteers need a viable, fair and accessible grievance process
It is generally perceived that there needs to be a smaller investment of the manager’s time and resources in reward and motivation activities	It is generally perceived that there needs to be a greater investment of the manager’s time and resources in reward and motivation activities

What’s in it for me?

Given all these differences (and not so many similarities), why should a leader employ volunteers? Here are just some of the reasons why I love having volunteers in my team:

ü Volunteers bring a degree and passion and enthusiasm for the mission that we “full-timers” can sometimes lose,

ü Volunteers bring fresh ideas, newness and are ready to question inefficiencies,

ü Volunteers tend to be outside the office politics dynamic,

ü Leaders and other team members are given the privilege of helping volunteers in their skills, career and personal development,

ü Volunteers value-add capacity and competence to the team as a whole,

ü Volunteers can provide a pool in which to fish for employees.

(This image from: FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

Are you convinced about using volunteers yet? I hope so. In my next post, I will share how easy it is to recruit, select, induct and manage volunteers, and I will provide some sample tools that you can adapt for your local setting.

No more dragon-ladies - Please!

2012-08-19T18:28:00.000+08:00

Have you ever wondered what makes the office dragon-lady the way she is? Did you ever stop to consider why some people are lovely to know socially, but are workplace tyrants when they’re in charge of a team?

It could have something to do with their limited repertoire of behaviours in the face of frustration.

Leaders’ behaviour has a much greater impact on the members of a team than any other single person on the team. Every behaviour the leader gets even slightly wrong is magnified in its impact on the team. Yet we have the responsibility of keeping everything and everyone on track. If things are not moving quickly enough, or members of the team are not cooperating, it is so easy to become either too aggressive or too passive, either of which could threaten the cohesion of the team.

What is the answer to this dilemma?

The leader has to recognise that he/she is responsible for his/her own behaviour and thoughts. Most teams will forgive a rare expression on frustration but, beyond this, the leader must be in control of him/herself all the time.

The dragon-lady and workplace tyrant have yet to learn this lesson. They have not learned to express their opinion, get what they want and move the team forward without resorting to abusive techniques.

In a frustrating situation there are essentially three behaviour styles that a leader can adopt; passive, aggressive or assertive.

The Aggressive Leader

The aggressive leader is the one that gets her way without respecting the opinions and feelings of her team members. She may indulge in some extreme behaviour such as shouting, screaming or table banging. She will generally display non-verbals that are closed, contemptuous and hard. She is the kind of person that a team member is not likely to approach for advice or guidance. The key characteristic of her relationship with her team members is fear.

This leadership style does not provide an environment for open communication, creating the probability of vital information not being transferred, de-motivation of team members and strained workplace relationships, all of which results in lower productivity and “soldiering”^.

The Submissive Leader

The submissive leader is the one that gives way to the opinions and feeling of her team members and has little regard for her own. She avoids conflict and so she often has to resort to manipulative ways to get the job done. It is not uncommon for her to get caught up in playing favourites and using back door methods to progress the work of the team. Her workplace is often characterised by bitchiness and back stabbing. She provides no emotional safety for the team members. She is usually seen as a “peace at any price” kind of boss, and the domineering members of the team tend to step into the power vacuum and take over.

The Assertive Leader

The assertive leader is able to issue instructions and directions while at the same time respecting the feelings and the opinions of her team members.

Fundamental to her belief system is the premise that everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy and respect, and she uses the basic tools of politeness and patience combined with good listening skills and creative problem solving. She is willing to compromise on some less important things so that she can “win” the important issues.

She finds that, as she treats her subordinates with respect, they tend to give cooperation in return. Though her methods might be slower (in that she takes time to win trust and confidence), in the long term her team is more effective and efficient.

What kind of leader would your team members say you are?

(Photos courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

Six Leadership Tips from Jim Collins

2012-08-19T16:44:00.001+08:00

This post by August Turak is so practical and useful, I just had to re-post it as is.

Great advice on time management, staying focused, hiring and firing - the distillation of many years of practical, front-line leadership experience.

Judge for yourself!

If you want a job well done, don't do it yourself!

2012-07-02T16:33:00.001+08:00

When delegating doesn’t work

For some people delegation is so unnatural and counter-intuitive that they really can’t get past the old mothers’ wisdom that “if you want a job done well you should do it yourself”. And then when they try to delegate and it fails it only serves to reinforce their belief that they were right all along.

But delegation fails, not because it is inherently inferior, but because of how it has been carried out. Delegation fails when . . .

1. Responsibility is delegated without authority

One of the most frustrating and disempowering experiences your team members can have is to be given a task but not the authority to carry it out.

I recently heard of a manager that was appointed to “clean-up” a certain organisation that had become inefficient and ineffective. It was experiencing poor team morale, sales were down, productivity was low, and staff turnover and absenteeism were through the roof.

But, the new manager was given no authority to performance-manage any of the staff. She was not allowed to intervene in the production side of the business, she was not given up-to-date business information, and she was not allowed to hire and fire. In fact the only thing she could do was drive the marketing and sales campaigns. In a nutshell, she was not given the authority she needed to do the job!

Although she made impressive gains in the one area she had control over, marketing and sales, it was only a few months before she left the job in frustration. (And I just heard she is thinking of setting up her own rival company! Wouldn’t you feel annoyed with yourself if you were the leader who had let that talent slip through your fingers?)

Whatever the job, large or small, it is important that the delegate is given all the authority she needs for doing the job.

2. The leader doesn’t understand the capacity of the team member

Understanding the capacity of the person to do the task you are giving them is an important skill for a leader.

The strengths and inclinations of your team member should be a guide to what you can delegate, how close you should monitor, and the quality of work you can expect.

There is a balance to delegating tasks and responsibilities that are beyond the team member’s experience.

On one hand, it’s good to occasionally delegate so that the experience is going to be a growth and development opportunity for your team member. You have to understand that you won’t get perfection this time round, but you are building for the future.

On the other hand, don’t give him a task that is so far away from his skills, gifts and preferences that he will be entirely out of his depth. He will flounder and feel that he is inadequate and incapable. It will be a blow to his confidence, and may prevent his future growth.

3. The job was not properly communicated

We all come to each interaction with a set of pre-conditioned expectations, and if your’s are different to your team member’s the scene is set for a delegation failure.

This is particularly true of (but not limited to) those who work in a cross-cultural environment.

Recently, I asked a member of my team to provide an account name and number on a document. When the document arrived on my desk it had the account name and number but no other information.

I had assumed that it was implicit that all the other information would also be provided and that I was giving instruction on this limited aspect of the form (Western perspective). My team member had acted on the implication that I wanted only what I had specifically asked for (Eastern perspective).

Of course, this misunderstanding was minor and easily rectified, but for a major task or role fixing the problem is not always so easy.

These kinds of errors are common and I have often heard managers blame the delegate without properly analysing what went wrong. The way I try to minimise miscommunication errors is three-fold.

a. Start with verbal explanation of the task / role,

b. Follow-up with something in writing, which could be some dot-points on a scrap of paper or informal meeting notes, through to formal meeting minutes or a position description (depending on what is being communicated),

c. During the life of the task / role, make sure that you check-in with the delegate frequently, especially in the early stages.

4. The leader interferes in the delegated task

There is nothing more tempting than the urge to take over a task that we can see is being done slowly, poorly or ineffectively.

But this is an absolute killer to the trust and loyalty of the team member who is doing the job. And the chances are that she will not remain silent about this this kind of interference. She may or may not talk to you about your interference, but you can be certain that she will tell the rest of the team. It is a sure way of building resentment and distrust in your whole team.

Resist the temptation to take over. Offer help, offer guidance, provide feedback, but only when the situation is really, really, really desperate should you take over.

5. The leader “sets it and forgets it”

A hundred years ago (give or take), I trained for management for the hospitality industry. In one particular practicum I was assigned to a hotel as a “night controller”. The incumbent of this now out-dated position worked through the night to carry out manually the accounting tasks now carried out in seconds by the computer behind the reception desk. When you checked out, for example, did it ever occur to you that someone had been awake all night making sure that your bill, along with those of the 500 other guests, was up-to-date?

What a complex and time-consuming task this was (albeit simple in concept). Billing information had to be gathered from every phone record, bar, restaurant, kitchen, service and housekeeping department. It had to be made sense of, and charged to the right customer, all before the first of them began to check out at 7.00am or earlier.

Now, in this complex and highly time-critical environment, this rookie trainee was blessed with a “set it and forget it” manager. Her mantra was “I already told you how to do that!”

Consequently, until I got up to speed, there were a lot of customers that didn’t get charged all they should have, and possibly one or two that were overcharged.

Further, because she was also a real dragon lady, I was reluctant to ask her if I was in doubt about anything. The financial cost to the company could have been considerable, and the cost in morale (therefore staff turnover and absenteeism) could have been very high. But my manager had no regard for these things. She was more concerned about the personal inconvenience to herself.

Except in the most ideal of circumstances, the “set it and forget it” approach never works!

6. The leader delegates then passes the blame when things go wrong

Napoleon is attributed with the words, “There are no bad soldiers; only bad officers’, a statement that has influenced my leadership for many years.

A leader who delegates well will monitor with the right level of involvement so that things are less likely to go wrong. He will make sure that the team member has all the information, authority, materials and tools he needs to do the job.

When things go wrong he will absorb the criticism levelled from outside of the team, while appropriately and discretely apportioning it inside the team. There is nothing more embarrassing that hearing a manager saying “It wasn’t my fault, it was XXX (name of a team member)”.

When a manager says this to me, I know that he is really admitting that he failed to both properly manage his team member, and to take responsibility for his poor management.”

If I was making a list of “Things that will engender distrust and disloyalty in the team as well as break down relationships with peer-level managers”, this would be near the top.

Finally, a reminder . . .

In a previous post Why Tasks Don’t Stay Delegated I have presented a simple tool to help delegation decisions. Take a look – you might find it helpful.

The uncool training method that works 100% of the time (well almost)

2012-06-16T19:34:00.000+08:00

During the Second World War, the Brits sent all their eligible men overseas to the front and the women (who were mostly home-based at that time) had to fill their positions in the workplaces of Britain. How did the nation train an unskilled and un-workready workforce and get them up-to-speed in a very short time?

Their psychologists and trainers developed a simple and highly-focused, but now largely forgotten, training technique, that works almost every time. With it they transformed a nation of stay-at-home mums and teenage girls into a highly effective workforce that ran the nation while their men were away.

This is it . . .

Step 1:
The trainer carries out the task slowly without comment or explanation with the trainee watching.

Step 2:
The trainer carries out the task again stopping and explaining each element in the process.

Step 3:
The trainee carries out the task as the trainer guides and explains how to do each element.

Step 4:
The trainee carries out the task, and explains to the trainer what she/he is doing step by step. The trainer offers correction and encouragement through the process.

Step 5:
The trainee carries out the task without comment or guidance, and the trainer gives feedback at the end.

How simple is that? It really works and can be adapted to all kinds of activities. I have used it to train all kinds of things from evangelism to writing funding submissions. (Those of you who have been trained by me are probably thinking “Oh, so that’s what he was up to!”)

Of course, this is a very uncool way of training people, which is probably why it has fallen into dis-use. But, the principles can be adapted and made more relevant to postmodern trainees.

As with everything, there are some limitations to this method of training. Here are the most significant of them:

The trainer has to have a very conscious (rather than sub-conscious) knowledge of the task so that she can break it down into its component parts. This requires some preparation.
It is assumed that the trainee has the capacity to learn the task and carry it out, so selection of the right people is important.
It can be made to work with the training of any task, but it works best with tasks that are hands-on, less complex, do not call for judgement, and have a degree of repetition.
From the trainee’s point of view, it can feel a little patronising, though this can be overcome by taking personable approach.

On the plus side, it means that you do not need to be a highly qualified or skilled trainer to use this method, just knowledge of what you’re training, and a little bit of patience.

Further, the method lends itself well to repeating phases until the trainee gains enough confidence and competence. I often find myself repeating Steps 3 and 4 a few times when training some tasks, especially those that require building up a degree of self-confidence such as evangelism or preparing a sermon. There are some things that most people are instinctively nervous about, so re-working some of the steps with them will help them overcome their reticence.

As a leader, one of your core activities is delivering training, so perhaps this little method can become part of your training techniques repertoire.

Time Management is Easy

2012-06-10T16:59:00.000+08:00

Like a lot of things in management and leadership, there are people who seem to have a vested interest in making time management complicated. I know of colleagues who have spent between US$1,000 and US$2,000 on time management courses and systems that have been so complex that they were not able to sustain them for more than a few months.

Keep it simple!

The first principle of time management is keeping it simple! And the second principle is making it fit your own ways of working, your own personality.

There are only five things you need for a good time management system.

An action list (to-do list)
A diary
Less than half-an-hour per working day
An understanding of the difference between important and urgent
A little bit of stickability

This is what you do

Develop a list of tasks and, during the course of each day, mark off tasks as they get done, and add new tasks as they come up. Once a day spend twenty to thirty minutes sorting out the priorities for the next 24 hour period.

In the diary, you put all the appointments, fixed points and unchangeable deadlines. Update it as new events come up. And oh; you must remember to look at it every day!

That’s it. That is all that is required for good time management.

Put your personal stamp on your time management

Now, from these basic elements you can personalise it and make it increasingly sophisticated – or not.

For example you might want to consider . . .

Do I have my action list and/or diary on-line, on-screen or on paper?
Do I prioritise tasks under titles like today, tomorrow, this week, this month, etc., or do I simply number them 1 to (say) 43?
Do I tick (P) or ~~cross out~~ my completed tasks?
Do I colour code the tasks by importance and urgency?
Do I re-arrange the order each day according the order in which I plan to do the tasks?
How much time should I factor in for interruptions and other unexpected events?
If I have multiple copies of my diary and/or action list how do I ensure up-to-date syncing?
What fun elements and emotional rewards am I going to introduce, such as giving myself a smiley, a tick (P), or even a coffee break or snack when I complete a task?

Working out the answers to these questions that best suit you will mean that you are more likely to consistently stick with your time management system in the long term.

Importance and urgency

Urgent tasks are those that scream at us from the page, “Do this task now!”, and “The deadline is fast approaching!” Often they are tasks that will have real or imagined consequences if they are late. But, they are not always the most important.

Important tasks are those that are aligned to your strategic goals, the direction of where you want to go, the tasks that will make a difference to your ministry, that will change lives. They are the high priority tasks. Nevertheless, these tasks often remain quiet and unobtrusive.

So putting the rubbish out, cleaning the car and filing the papers on your desk may all be urgent, but preparing a strategic plan, leading an evangelism team and organising a social outreach are tasks that are important.

One of the keys to successful leadership is making time for the important, and not allowing them to be squeezed out by the urgent.

Stickability

If you adopt a method of time management because it is “good for you” or “the correct thing”, but is not really you, you’re likely not to stick at it.

The more your system of time management reflects you and your preferences the more you are likely to have success in the longer term. Give yourself the biggest advantage you can.

I recognise that, for many, the very idea of life being organised and structured seems unnatural and awkward. But the effort of getting past this is more than worth it. I know many people who have pushed through their own internal resistance and adopted simple time management techniques as a way of life. Without exception, they have experienced good results within weeks and have gone on to enjoy a much higher level of effectiveness in their ministry.

Still not convinced? Let me finish with an observation that you won't often hear from a senior officer.

If you’ve done any ministry training you’ve had it drummed into you that the worst possible time to prepare your Sunday morning sermon is on Saturday, right? However, I know officers who have liberated themselves from this “should” and regularly produce their very best work under the pressure of knowing they are going to be in front of a congregation within 24 hours! This is what works best for them. On the other hand, I personally start to feel uncomfortable if it’s not done by Wednesday. All of which goes to underscore the point . . . .

A successful time management system is one that bends to your preferences.

What really motivates people?

2012-05-29T18:34:00.000+08:00

“De-motivated” is not the opposite to “motivated”

Psychologist Frederick Herzberg’s 1968 article, "One More Time, How Do You Motivate Employees?" still holds records amongst the most reprinted and most requested management articles of all time.

But why?

In essence, because Herzberg was the first researcher to cut through all the mumbo-jumbo about motivation and present something that had real science behind it.

Herzberg and his team interviewed large numbers of accountants and engineers in the highly industrialised area around the City of Pittsburgh. His findings were surprising.

He concluded that the things that motivate and the things that de-motivate are not related to one another.

He described the de-motivators, or “hygiene factors” as he called them, as those things that do not give positive satisfaction, but will lead to dissatisfaction if they are absent. They’re not part of the actual work, but the things that surround it, such as:

Fair and reasonable organisational policies,
Good leadership and management,
Reasonable pay and a fair pay structure.

The motivators are those things that actual increase satisfaction and motivate us to work harder and smarter. The most important of these are:

Challenging work,
Recognition,
Responsibility,
Matching the right person to the right job.

(Herzberg's point is well illustrated in this little video that was my “Link of the Week” a few weeks back.)

In the local corps setting the implications of this may surprise you (then again, perhaps not if you think about it for a moment).

Hygiene Factors

We don’t have to worry about the fact that as an NGO we pay less than the commercial world. Paying a reasonable salary under a fair structure is essential, but once this is achieved if we think that by offering more money we will increase motivation we would be wrong.

(By the way, under this model the fair and reasonable salary structure for volunteers is zero. Volunteers are not in it for the money, and many would be affronted if they thought that we thought that money would made a difference to their commitment and service!)

However, we do have to make sure that our Army and our local corps provides a framework of fair and reasonable policies (such things as Orders and Regulations, Official Minutes, and local practices). And, in a people-based, frontline-oriented organisation such as The Salvation Army, if we think that some of these policies are unfair or unreasonable it is our duty to advocate for change.

But the area we have most influence over is our own management/leadership style. Fairness and reasonableness have to be hallmarks of everything we do as a leader; otherwise it will lead to dissatisfaction amongst the members of our team.

(If you’re not convinced about this, spend a few minutes thinking back to a leader or boss under whom you were dissatisfied or de-motivated. Did he/she manage you with fairness and reasonableness? Probably not!)

Motivators

On the other hand (and this is the really exciting part), Herzberg has given us a simple plan to motivate our team. Once we have put them in the right job, we go to the next step by giving them responsibility, challenge and recognition.

Essentially, people respond positively to being given more responsibility, and being given greater challenges. (I know this is counter-intuitive for many leaders, so see “Why tasks don’t stay delegated” to learn how to effectively give people more responsibility and challenges in a way that works.)

And recognition for their work; a note of thanks, a gift, a certificate, a public recognition ceremony or even a simple “thank you” goes a long way to increasing motivation.

Why do 50% of leaders fail?

2012-05-19T14:42:00.000+08:00

In my passion to encourage and promote evidence-based approaches to management and leadership (as opposed to the particularly high proportion of mumbo-jumbo that the subject seems to attract) I was delighted to stumble upon this gem from INSEAD’s Professor of Organisational Behaviour,Michael Jarret.

In this thirteen-minute interview, he has evidence-based answers for questions like:

Why do 50% of leaders fail?
Does personality make a leader?
What are the big five factors for successful leadership?
How can we recruit and select good leaders?
Is managing upwards good, bad or indifferent?
Is it important for the leader to be upbeat in the workplace?
Does leadership coaching really work?
What are the challenges of managing X and Y gens?
How will the culture of leadership change over the next ten years?

Hope you enjoy this as much as I did!

Theory X or Theory Y Manager?

2012-05-15T16:07:00.002+08:00

“The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can.”

So wrote MIT Professor Douglas McGregor in the late 1950’s in describing an attitude of many managers, common then as it is now.

McGregor proposed that managers’ attitude to their employees fall somewhere on a continuum of “Theory X” managers on one end and “Theory Y” managers on the other.

The Theory X Manager believes that his employees:

Have a built-in dislike of work and will avoid it if they can,
Have to be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment,
Want to directed,
Want to avoid responsibility, and
Have very little ambition.

On the other hand, the Theory Y manager believes that her employees:

See effort in the workplace as natural as it is at rest or play,
Welcome opportunities to be self-directed,
Enjoy the satisfaction of achievement,
Don't want to avoid responsibility, but rather seek it, and
want the opportunity to be very creative and imaginative at work.

The implications for management style are clear.

The Theory X manager will tend to be distrusting and micro-managing. He will tend to be poor at delegating and somewhat distance in his relationships. He will tend to see his role as policemen and judge.

The Theory Y manager will tend to be more relational, more engaged with her team and will try to create a more collaborative workplace. She tends to see herself as one who resources and supports the team and takes responsibility for their emotional safety.

(By the way, all these things are true of organisations, too. Just as there are Theory X and Theory Y managers, so there are organisations that tend to either one end or the other of the continuum. Scary, huh?)

So, armed with this information, here are two important questions for you to think about.

Which style of management is likely to be the most effective?
Which style of manager are you?

To help you answer the second question, here’s a quick self-test:

Which of these statements more closely represents the way you think?

Statement 1:

Theory X: I have to keep on their backs otherwise they would slack off.

Theory Y: I am confident of my team and their integrity to put in their best effort.

Statement 2:

Theory X: I would tell someone off or even fire them sometimes as an example to keep everyone else on their toes.

Theory Y: I only punish people respectfully, in private and after due process.

Statement 3:

Theory X: As boss, I am the only one who should make decisions.

Theory Y: I appropriately involve members of the team in decision making, according to their levels of capacity and responsibility.

Statement 4:

Theory X: I keep my distance because it's important for the boss to be remote to maintain respect.

Theory Y: I am relational with my team, understanding that the quality of my relationship with them will reflect in the standard of their work.

Statement 5:

Theory X: When things go wrong my first thought is to blame members of the workforce.

Theory Y: When things go wrong my first thought is to consider if and where I may have gone wrong.

Statement 6:

Theory X: At the discussion table, my opinion is the one that counts.

Theory Y: I sometimes remain quiet in meetings so that team members can express their ideas and creativity.

Why tasks don’t stay delegated

2012-05-05T19:09:00.002+08:00

Have you ever wondered why tasks don’t stay delegated? Sometimes it seems that even the simplest of tasks need so much hands-on supervision we can’t help thinking “It would have been easier to do it myself!”

This is even truer in an environment such as a not-for-profit or church in which most of our “workers” are volunteers with a heart of gold who want to serve the Lord, giving of themselves sacrificially, and whom we feel we cannot performance-manage in the same way we would in a professional workplace.

Of course, it doesn’t make sense to give into the temptation to do the job ourselves. We do that and we cease to be a leader / manager.

Some years ago, I had a conversation with a corps officer who was going through this frustration. He had a corps treasurer who was a lovely saintly soul; honest and reliable, caring and compassionate, but lacking in attention to detail. The result was a high level of errors, reports not completed on time, and a considerable amount of checking and fixing that the CO had to do.

The CO was so frustrated that he said he was thinking about taking the role off the treasurer and doing the task himself. During the course of our conversation, I asked him if there was another person who could take on the role. There was not. I asked him how much time he actually spent on checking up on the treasurer. He said about one to two hours a week. I asked him how much time it would take if he took over the treasurer’s role. He said about four or five hours. So, we concluded, even under these adverse conditions he has saved himself between two and four hours every week by delegating.

In most cases like this, a proper assessment of the situation will confirm that, even if you have to do a lot of massaging, a delegated task is best left delegated.

I went on to ask the officer what he was doing to skill up the treasurer. He expressed the thought (herein somewhat sanitised) that the treasurer was working to his capacity and that he was not going to improve no matter what.

“Does he know that you check and fix his work? I asked. “We have never discussed it, but he must know, because the figures are changed”, he replied. We talked about how that may make the treasurer feel.

“Why not give him a compassionate and caring feedback session based on the fixes you make each week?” I ventured. “There is no need to be judgemental, just make a note of the changes and explain them to him. Make sure that you communicate your appreciation of him doing the job and point out some of the things that are going right as well.”

To be honest, neither of us expected this approach to make much of a difference, but we felt that it was doing the right thing by the treasurer. So I was surprised when I met the corps officer a few months later and he reported both a change in attitude and an improvement in accuracy. (There are a whole load of psychological and practical reasons why this approach works, but that’s for another post maybe.)

Delegation (especially with volunteers) has to geared to both the nature of the person and the nature of the job.

But how can we do this in a quick and easy-to-apply way?

The 3C approach captures three of the most important variable factors to be considered when delegating: the capacity of the worker/volunteer, and the complexity and criticality of the task.

The capacity of the worker is the degree to which this person has what it takes to do this job. Two “big ticket” items in helping you assess this quickly and painlessly are in the answers to the questions:

Does this person have the right attitude?
How well has he/she done this kind of work before?

The complexity of the task is an estimate of how complicated it is, and its

criticality is a reflection of its importance to the success or failure of your section, corps or organisation. If it’s done badly, will it have a large or small impact?

(A full size version of this diagram is available by clicking on the picture.)

If the task is less critical and less complex, then less engagement is required from the leader than if it is more complex and critical. And the greater the capacity of the worker, the less leader-engagement is required in terms of instruction, supervision and accountability systems.

So, what are the take-home messages from all this?

1. It is almost always worth delegating, even if you have to monitor closely,

2. Delegating is never setting and forgetting. There is always some degree of follow-up required.

Happy delegating!

Public Speaking – Making it look easy (7)

2012-05-03T15:10:00.001+08:00

Gems from around the blogosphere

In this, the final of my series on public speaking, I want to share some gems from around the blogosphere that might provide some interesting reading and help psych you up for becoming an effective public speaker.

“What Every Entrepreneur Needs to Know About Public Speaking” is a great little starter-pack, written in a semi-humorous style; a good place to start if you want to break yourself in gently.

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/223109

Infobarrel also provide some entry-level hints, somewhat more seriously, with this post:

http://www.infobarrel.com/Successful_Public_Speaking

For a comprehensive range of public presentation skills, you can’t go past Public Speaking International. They have posts on just about every aspect of public speaking;

http://www.publicspeakinginternational.com/blog/

There is no place in public speaking for egocentricity, and in “The ‘Other-Conscious’ in Public Speaking” Jim De Piante explains why.

http://blogs.pmi.org/blog/voices_on_project_management/2012/04/the-other-conscious-in-public.html

Speech and presentation leadership coach, communication consultant and author of “Speaking that Connects”, Eileen N. Sinett presents 10 quick tips to help you add polish to your speaking in this post.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7UzZ7Y/humancapitalleague.com/Home/23709

Helium bloggers, Happy Dan, David Dewitt and Daniel Xio Wang, suggests a number of good ideas for the new public speaker to overcome the fear and hatred of speaking.

http://www.helium.com/items/972918-how-to-overcome-the-fear-of-public-speaking

http://www.helium.com/items/1802805-how-to-improve-public-speaking-skills

http://www.helium.com/items/1869437-advice-for-those-who-hate-public-speaking

Finally, for those of you who are ready for a bit of controversy, this next post might whet your appetite. Kristi Hedges, a former trainer in public speaking, claims that training is a waste of time and money. She claims that if you buy a book on the subject and practice in front of a webcam, you can get all the training you need. Is she right? See what you think.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/04/19/public-speaking-trainer-confesses-dont-waste-your-money-on-this/

Enjoy your reading – and your speaking!

Public Speaking - Making it look easy (6)

2012-04-22T15:41:00.002+08:00

Dealing with a hostile audience - Five realities

If I were to ask experienced speakers how many times they had faced a hostile audience, most could count them on the fingers of one hand. So why is it such a big fear?

At the end of my last post, I pointed to five realities that run counter to the illusion that fear creates. Here they are again . . .

The fear is greater than the reality,
Most audiences are supportive,
Usually the worst that will happen is indifference,
When there is hostility it is usually from one or two people only,
The techniques for handling hostile audiences are the same as those for handling Q&A’s (more or less).

(In this post I am not talking about some special situations that are by nature volatile, such as the closure of a service or a workplace, engagement in political activity, or challenging environmental or racial injustice. These are somewhat special circumstances for which the speaker is usually appropriately briefed, supported and resourced. In this post I am talking about the kind of occasions you might expect in ordinary corps / centre life.)

In the (unlikely) event of a challenge to what you are saying, here is an approach that has more than a reasonable chance of you coming out of it looking good, having acted with grace and retained the sympathy of the audience.

Validate the person making the challenge (perhaps by thanking him/her for his/her concern about the issue), but not the veracity of the challenge (unless it is right of course).
If the statement is fundamental to the argument of your presentation explain in two or three quick points why you believe you are right, validate the challenger again, and carry on with the presentation, all the while being conciliatory in your approach.
If the statement is not fundamental to your presentation, give a statement that asserts your belief in it, but your willingness to review it (after the presentation). Again a conciliatory tone is important.
Do not invite any further discussion.
Move on.

You can repeat this for one or two times only, but if it goes beyond this you clearly have a credibility problem looming. You have to take decisive action in some way. An experienced speaker may be able to draw on the support of the wider audience without overtly putting down the challenger by gently pointing to the anti-social behaviour of the challenger.

Don’t buy into an argument – simply challenge the antisocial behaviour

For example, I will politely but clearly challenge the behaviour so gently that it is barely seen as a challenge, perhaps something like this; “Thanks for your comment. I see that you disagree with my position - and I'm fine with that. But rather than take up everyone else’s time, is it OK if you and I have a separate chat about this after the presentation?”

As soon as you do this, you have changed the dynamic in the room. He begins to be exposed as a person behaving badly, and you are becoming established as a person who cares about everybody in the room.

It may take another one or two attempts at this, but a rational person will realise that as he persists he is increasingly being perceived as small, petty-minded and ego-centric. He will back off. On the other hand, an irrational person might keep going of course, but all the time he will be strengthening your sympathy from the audience (as long as you remain calm and self-possessed), and even those who were against your position will be filled with respect for you as a person.

Some do’s and don’ts

Do: Remember that your goal in a skirmish is to act with grace under fire, to keep your head while others are losing their’s, to represent yourself, your organisation and your God in a way that you will have no shame about the next day. You do not want even one sleepless night with the thought “I wish I hadn’t said . . .xxx” going round your head.

Do: Step forward toward the challenger (It strengthens your own resolve and sends a message that you are not intimidated).

Do: Seek to validate the challenger without patronising him.

Do: Give a reasonable time for the challenger to express his view, but then . . .

Do: Interrupt the challenger politely and graciously when he is going on too long.

Don’t: Allow the challenger to take over the session.

Don’t: Allow yourself to be forced into agreeing to something you do not believe to be right or inappropriate.

In my next post, the final of my series on public speaking, I will share some some gems from around the blogosphere that will provide interesting reading and help prepare you to become a highly effective public speaker.

Public Speaking - Making it look easy (5)

2012-04-15T20:00:00.002+08:00

According to statistics more people fear public speaking than fear death. But, for many people, the most anxiety-provoking elements of public speaking are dealing with a hostile audience and handling a Question and Answer session (Q&A). Is it really that bad?

Handling Q&A’s – Six Judgement Calls

Presenters get nervous about Q&A’s because they call for snap decisions and quick thinking while trying to look relaxed and composed under pressure. There appears to be no way of preparing adequately beforehand. But actually there is.

Recognising the nature of certain "tension points" that call for judgement during a Q&A is the first step to being in control. Understanding and managing these points of tension during the preparation phase will empower you to be confident and effective in the delivery.

These are the six "tension points" or judgement calls that I aim to keep in balance when I handle a Q&A.

Judgement Call #1: Prime the pump . . . , but don’t keep pumping

Often there is a reluctance in the audience to be the first to ask a question. After a suitable pause you can get things started yourself. I will often say something like, “Then let me ask you a question. Has anyone here come across this problem before?” The first question is simple and requires no more than a nod of the head. Usually, there is someone in an audience who will communicate by their non-verbals they are willing to say more. I follow up with a question that requires something extra, “How did you resolve it?” Then we're away.

If, after a reasonable honest attempt, nothing happens; it is time to stop. Sometimes, you just have to come to terms with the fact that everyone is tired and they want to go home. They are just not as fascinated with your subject as you are.

In this case, thank everyone for their attention and wrap up the session by underscoring your central statement.

Judgement Call #2: Confidence . . . , but not cockiness

When asked a question, you can assert your confidence by physically stepping forward as the question is being asked. This creates a psychological impact for you and for the audience. You give yourself the message “I am not going to shrink away from this anxiety-provoking event”, and the audience get the idea that you are confident, in control and ready for anything.

Present your answers strongly and confidently, but don’t feel you have to have an answer for every question. If you don’t know the answer, it is OK to say so, usually with a promise to provide that information at a later date.

Sometimes, audience members will ask you detailed questions that you could not reasonably be expected to remember (about dates, numbers, data, that kind of thing). My reply usually goes something like. “That’s a good question. Off-hand I don’t know exactly how many. I don’t carry that kind of detail around with me in my head, but I will find out for you.”

This kind of reply is a plus for your credibility. It indicates you’re a big-picture (strategic) thinker but you are willing to make the effort to provide the small picture stuff.

Judgement Call #3: Keep it simple . . ., but don’t dumb it down

If you have spent the whole of your presentation being careful to relate to the stereotypical member of your audience (See my first post in this series) the last thing you want to do is to blow it on the Q&A.

Continue to pitch your comments at the right level for the audience, not getting too technical or long-winded on one hand, nor making it over-simplistic on the other.

Judgement Call #4: Stay on message . . . , but it’s not an infomercial

By now you have spent most of your address communicating a message that you believe is important for your audience to hear.

It is so easy for the Q&A to become a time when that message is lost in an avalanche of other material. Remember the principle of primacy and immediacy in No 2 of this series? Keep relating your answers back to your central message.

On the other hand, don’t go overboard to the extent that you resort to the old politician’s trick of always answering with what you want to say regardless of the question. That’s a sure way to lose the respect of your audience.

Judgement Call #5: Impromptu . . . , but well-prepared

The best preparation for a Q&A is to know your material and have ready answers for the expected questions. If you’re not sure what questions to expect, use the old journo’s brainstorm technique. Write down the words who, what, when, why and how and use them as the basis for developing a series of questions and answers that are both quantitative (about numbers) and qualitative (about stories). Keep in mind your stereotypical audience member as you prepare. Once you have considered the possibilities, leave it alone.

Judgement Call #6: Allow freedom of speech . . . , but not too free

In every Q&A there is a guy (they are almost always men – I do not recall it ever being a woman in my experience) who wants to share his own opinion and is not really interested in what others may have to say. He is prepared to go on at length.

It is good to give him space to express opinions, especially those differing to your own. It marks you as a person of grace. However, if he goes on too long it is the job of the moderator to politely close him down, but often this does not happen and you may have to take charge.

I usually handle this with a polite interruption and an appeal to the fairness of giving everyone else time for a question. I try to find something in his comments that I can affirm and always make the promise to share with him one-on-one later. (He never takes this up by the way – he is only interested in getting an audience.)

Finish strongly

Remember that you are in front of these people because you have a message you believe is important for them to hear. Applying the principle of primacy and immediacy, finish with a strong statement; something like, “Thank you for your attention today. Having heard the evidence I am sure you can be in no doubt about the authenticity of Jesus’ message or how it changes lives even now, two thousand years on.”

Dealing with a hostile audience - Five realities

In my next post I will share a few scenarios that they don’t tell you about when you sign up for public speaking courses.

For now I just want to encourage you to reflect on these five realities:

The fear is greater than the reality,
Most audiences are supportive,
Usually the worst that will happen is indifference,
When there is hostility it is usually from one or two people only,
The techniques for handling hostile audiences are the same as those for handling Q&A’s (more or less).

Public Speaking - Making it look easy (4)

2012-04-07T13:09:00.001+08:00

I have heard a lot of boring and ineffective preaching over the years!

But I have also heard some great preaching. Nobody sets out to be boring and ineffective, so what is it that makes the difference? How can you prevent yourself becoming one of those preachers that everyone can’t wait to finish?

In this post, I point the way to just some of the elements that can make preaching real, relevant, and above all effective.

But what is an effective preach?

It’s not necessarily one that is entertaining, witty, clever, or theologically sophisticated (though it can have these elements). It is one in which the preacher accurately portrays God’s message to God’s people in a way they understand, engage with, and which influences them for change.

For this to happen all the elements of good public speaking should apply (see previous posts) but there is more, number one on the list being your own (the preacher’s) spiritual condition.

What does God want you to say?

Your first task as a preacher is to establish what God wants you to say to this congregation at this time. Of course, you can only do this through prayer in a context of a sound spiritual life.

If you are the regular preacher to the congregation, or even a member of it, you will have a good understanding of its spiritual needs, but what does God want you to present today? This is a matter of careful thought and prayer. (This does not preclude the preaching series; the decision is just earlier in the process.)

If you don’t know the congregation, it becomes harder, but a discussion with your host will usually start off your thought processes. (And, as a visitor, you may have the advantage of being able to issue a more controversial challenge than is always possible in the local setting.)

As part of working out the essential message that God wants to be communicated, seek to be led to a scripture passage. This will form the basis of your preach.

What did the author want to communicate?

Generally, the only legitimate way to present scripture is in a way that reflects the author’s original intention. (When I say author in this case I mean both the human and the God who inspired him.)

To do this we have to have an understanding of the context that the writer lived and wrote in and the context that his readership received it in.

This is an important integrity issue. It is the way we can be sure that we do not force our own ideas on what the scripture is saying.

For example, I once heard a sermon about the comparative qualities of various types of sheep farming methods based on the 23^rd Psalm. I have no doubt that some farming methods are more sustainable, ethical and humane than others, but it is not the intention of the Psalmist to point that out. He is celebrating the nurturing nature of God.

It may sound like a difficult task to work out the context, but in fact there are resources at your disposal that will make it easy. Here is my four-step suggestion for doing this phase of your preparation in about an hour.

Step 1: Check out general background (20 - 30 minutes)

Most Bibles have an introductory few pages at the beginning of each book explaining the background of the book; who wrote it, what was going on for him at the time, who the audience was, the kind of people they were, what was going on for them, the approximate dates. Simply read this and absorb it.

Step 2: Identify what genre (style) of literature this book is (5 - 10 minutes)

A little time in thought should be able to give you the answer to this. Is it a history book, a letter, a poetry book, an evangel (a biographical book edited in such a way as to persuade the reader – such as the four Gospels and Acts), a book of wisdom, a record of prophecy, etc.? This is as important because of the assumptions we make about we read are based on our understanding of the genre. (Would you read an advertisement with the same trust that you read a review of the product? Would you read a newspaper with the same assumption as you read a novel? Of course not; you are unconsciously influenced by what you know about the genre.)

Step 3: Check out what is going on before and after your chosen passage (10- 15 minutes)

Often a quick read of what is before and after the passage will give some insight into the passage itself. About a chapter each way should do it.

Step 4: Check through your passage looking for things that seem odd in today’s context (15 - 20 minutes)

Find out why this is. Most likely it is something that was widely understood by the original readership, but does not make sense without explanation today. For example, if I wrote in a letter to you “The first thing we did when we drove into town was stop to eat at the golden arches”, you would know that I was referring to McDonalds. In two thousand years’ time, my readership will probably not make the same conclusion. I have often heard some embarrassing made-up answers to the questions these that these passages though up. You are better off not addressing the matter than making something up.

If you carry out these four simple steps, you are more likely to be true to the real intention of God and the writer than if you don’t. It might not be perfect, but it is a reasonable step in the right direction. And if you follow this kind of approach by habit you will build up a broader and deeper knowledge of the Bible that will make each preach easier than the previous one, as well as being a blessing to you personally.

An effective preach has an effective “how to”

If we believe that an effective preach is “is one in which the preacher accurately portrays God’s message to God’s people in a way they understand, engage with, and which influences them for change”, then, almost by definition, it must have some explanation of how to make the change.

Each address should have “how to” part to it, so that every listener is in no doubt about what she/he has to do to apply the principles he/she has just heard.

The “how to” should be geared to the matter that has been preached, the congregation, and the circumstances of the presentation.

To use an extreme example, I always preach salvation at a funeral (don’t invite me if you don’t want the gospel preached at your funeral), but it is clearly not appropriate to take over the service with a prolonged call to the mercy seat. Instead I invite attenders to seek out a Salvationist or other spiritual Christian whom they trust, for further discussion, emphasising that it really should be today lest the momentum and opportunity be lost.

Having worked with addicts and alcoholics for about twenty years I have probably had a higher-than-average number of funerals to conduct, but I do not recall anyone being offended by a clear and definite, but sensitive, “how to”.

A trap to avoid

Before closing, it would be remiss of me not to mention one of the biggest traps that many preachers fall into. That is treating the Old Testament as though it is a manual of ethics and morality for Christians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Old Testament serves a number of important purposes.

It provides historical and cultural background that culminates in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and the establishment of the Church (the worldwide body of Christians, all spiritually interconnected),

It contains a number of books that capture the mythology (truths told in story or history form) of the people (Israel) from whom Jesus came,

It is a repository for poetry, wisdom literature and prophecy of the centuries leading to Jesus,

It is the means by which God established that we cannot win a place in heaven by obeying rules or laws, only by the grace and forgiveness of God.

The Old Testament contains examples of God’s people behaving in very un-Christian ways on one hand, and it imposes rules that are irrelevant, unrealistic and impractical on the other.

So generally it cannot be used as a moral guidebook for the Christian. It is inconsistent for this purpose. (Otherwise, Christians would be required to abstain from Pork and get circumcised, and would be expected to kill foreigners to take over their land!) Rather it is a means of providing background and input into the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament writers.

(Almost all the moral and ethical teaching that a Christian will ever need is contained in Jesus’ mega-speech on how to live, recorded in Matthew 5, 6, and 7.)

Preaching is a huge subject, so this post is just a toe-in-the water exercise, but if you’re interested in know more feel free to contact me in English or Chinese at TAW_leadership@taw.salvationarmy.org. Also you could follow me on Twitter as I will refer to preaching material from time to time.

In my next post I will cover handling a Q&A session and share some ideas about coping with a hostile audience.

Public Speaking - Making it look easy (3)

2012-03-30T21:00:00.000+08:00

In my previous posts I shared some ideas on preparing and delivering a public presentation. But what extra thing can you do to make your presentation buzz?

Admired speakers are able to use humour in a way that engages their audience in the subject to a surprising degree. Only recently, I saw the audience of a young speaker responding out loud to his rhetorical questions, so engaged were they in his material.

However, there are some pitfalls to the use of humour; it takes a degree of caution to be able to pull it off without mishap. There’s nothing worse than a speech full of jokes that misfire!

But do not be discouraged. The good news is that, with a few simple ground rules, new public speakers can use humour successfully and effectively every time.

Ground Rule for Humour #1: Be yourself and be humble

When we are attempting to be funny, there is often the temptation to think and behave as though we are being smart and clever. Your humour should be a reflection of the real you, not some sophisticated superior you that you imagine you are presenting as. The reality is, you are more likely to be perceived as a person who is trying to look clever, rather than one who is. Authenticity is the way to people's hearts, not pretentiousness. In the words of Captain Danielle Strickland, "I have never heard a fantastic sermon delivered by a jerk!"

Ground Rule for Humour #2: Your funny story must really be funny

Does the story you are telling make you laugh? If it doesn’t, it is not likely to make your audience laugh. If there is any doubt don’t use it.

Ground Rule for Humour #3: Good delivery is essential

The number of times I have heard a funny story fumbled because the speaker forgot the punch-line or missed out an important detail is too great to think about. That is the kind of experience that leaves everyone with a moment of cringe. Be very sure of your material and even practice it and refine it in front of a friend before “going live” with it.

Other delivery issues to be aware of are:

It has to sound convincing and real,
Inject some limited acting into it; voice modulation, gestures and expressions can all add to the power of the story,
Keep it short.

Ground Rule for Humour #4: Keep it relevant

Usually, the only reasons for using humour are to:

1. Illustrate the point you are making in your address, or

2. As an icebreaker / rapport-builder at the beginning of the speech, or

3. As an attention grabber or “lightener” when things have got a bit heavy.

If it doesn’t serve one of these goals it probably doesn’t belong in your speech.

Ground Rule for Humour #5: Keep it appropriate

Gauging what is appropriate and what is not for a particular audience is important. If you go too far you will lose their support. The better you know your audience the more accurately you can assess their sense of appropriateness. (Be aware that the same audience may have different sense of appropriateness on different occasions. For example, a more graphic description may be used in a Saturday night fellowship meeting than in a Sunday morning sermon.)

You also need a clear sense of what you consider appropriate and inappropriate. An expression or turn-of-phrase you may use with family and friends might be considered disrespectful from the platform. On the other hand don't forsake your authenticity.

There is never a place for unclean humour, not even in a male-only audience. Despite many speakers’ behaviour to the contrary, there are many men who do not wish to be exposed to unsavoury humour. Most likely they will remain silent in your audience, but you will have devalued yourself and your message in their eyes.

Ground Rule for Humour #6: It’s OK to have the occasional flop

I once addressed an audience of sergeants and senior officers of the Western Australia police force. As I got up to speak in my Salvation Army uniform, they all sat looking up at me in their police uniforms. On the spur of the moment I decided to say as an icebreaker, “I see you all had the same problem as me this morning - couldn’t decide what to wear to the office.” No one laughed. Later in the same address, I referred to one of their senior officers (my host) in a humorous way, and again no-one laughed. One or two further attempts at humour were met with blank stares.

Sometimes, it just doesn’t work – and that’s OK. (Afterwards, several members of the audience said how helpful the address was and my host apologised for their “stuffiness”.) The important thing is to move on. In no circumstances explain your story or apologise for it. If it didn't work, it didn't work, and that is the end of it. Trying to squirm out of it will only make things worse.

Ground Rule #7: Enjoy yourself

I am convinced that humour is a gift of God, the whole idea of which is to help us enjoy our interactions with each other. Enjoy the humour you inject into your speaking, let it be an expression of your personality, and use it to spread happiness and fun, especially if there is some serious subject matter that you have to get through.

Coming up in Public Speaking – Making it look easy: Running a Q&A session, responding to objections, hints on preaching from the Bible, and sharing a meaningful testimony.