 |
| George - George - George - 3 types of leaders and planners. |
2013
- George – George – George (Lessons in Planning)
(40 Summers 40 Lessons Series)
Top-Down
Planning
“George” was the nickname of a major non-profit
organizations attempt at creating a universal membership and program management
system. At the turn of this century, this agency spent millions of dollars and
thousands of man hours working on what was thought to be the best system that
would provide for the needs of everyone of the agencies in the country. It
turns out that as they planned and spent, no one ever thought to ask the front
line staff who dealt with the agencies customers as to what they thought or
perhaps needed.
The best intentions are often misguided and I believe
that top down planning to determine the needs of those on the ground require a
great deal of ego at that the top.
Many of you may know and have been a part of the long term or strategic planning process. It is (in the past) about taking a group of stakeholders to a retreat and having a consultant lead mission planning and "wordsmithing" and then that plan becomes a dust catcher on a shelf. (Oversimplified version, I know)
There is a great article by Henry
Mintzberg (Harvard Business Review) called, “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning”
that may interest you. Feel free to do an online search of that publication and
make sure to note the year, 1994.
As the leader of an organization like a camp, solid
leadership is necessary. Often times to be able to look out on the landscape
and position what and who is needed to help define the plan. Get those folks in
place, help equip them, and then get out of their way.
Middle-Out
Planning
I have participated in several planning sessions with
middle management in my career. The pattern that I have discovered can be
summed up from a controller that I worked with. His name, George, had spent 11
years in that organization and he spoke about how change was needed at every
level of the organization.
He spent his work week providing the much need
financial analysis and controls in regard to cash flow and planning. Working in
a multi-million dollar non-profit, his work is vital when it comes to having
accurate information for annual reports provided not only to donors and volunteers,
but also for the needed 990 reports for tax purposes. And, when it came to
seeking funding from foundations in the form of grants, the information had to
show not only accuracy, but how a need would be met and how many individuals
would be impacted by the funding.
Back at our planning session, there was discussion of
how things needed to flow with-in the organization. I suggested a stream lined
system for budget planning. This particular organization was using Lotus as a
planning tool. Those of you unfamiliar with Lotus, I am not talking about the classic 1957 car manufacturer. I am talking about the software designed in 1982 and
discontinued by IBM in 2012. Let me restate that - 1982.
This particular planning was taking place in the last
decade. George said, “Lotus is the single best software ever designed to manage
budget planning.”
What I learned that day, is that most of the time when
middle management is involved in making plans and decisions about the needs and
influence to better serve customers, they often make decisions that reinforce
what their needs are and not that of the customer.
Relying on the defenders of the status quo is a
misguided approach to planning and leadership. Doing the same things to support
those who are adapting to change on the front lines often leads to more of the
same.
Bottom-Up
Doing
George Finnerty was a volunteer I worked with for
nearly a dozen years and I learned so many lessons and this is perhaps the best
one. He would just say something like ask yourself, “how
does this help camp? If it is a good decision, which will help the kids, then
that’s the right thing to do.”
I began to use that filter
on so many levels. Over the years, working with young staff and helping they realize
that because they want to try and do something “new and innovative” it had to
pass the test. “How does this benefit the camper experience and fit in our
mission and values?” I never asked the question in that manner. I asked
questions that helped me understand what they had in mind and in my head; I was
seeking to answer that question on behalf of the participants.
As I have served at
different camps and organizations, I have hit the
“That’s the way we have always done it” wall on numerous occasions. It is
sometimes mislabeled as “tradition.” One of my favorite leaders, Catherine Meyer, recently shared that one of her take a way lessons of working at camp was, "
Those of you who have used a
fax machine to send a copy of a flier or letter, you know that upon receiving
that fax and making copies of it to share with others; there is often degradation
in the ink and image.
In camps (and many organizations),
I have often times believed that some “traditions” are just that. Someone had a
great image of a program, activity, game, or event. It was replicated for
several seasons. That original provider or leader left and the program was
replicated for several more seasons. At some point one of the campers who saw
the activity happen, became part of the staff. That person made modifications
and the activity continued.
 |
| Hard to read, imagine this after copying it, faxing, copying and faxing again. (I did not attend this event) (It may have been found in a lodge at camp after cleaning up from summer staff 1981) |
At some point, the program
becomes a memory of what happened when someone who was not even there, provides
their version of what was once a “great game.” Just like a copy of a fax, that
had been copied and faxed and sent again several times and faxed again. I am
not sure that is what Alexander Bain intended when he invented the FAX machine
in 1843 (not a typo).
I take one of my planning
lessons from George Lucas. He storyboards all his stories that lead to his film
making. As a visual learner, I love my color coded note cards and using them to
plan training sessions, pair staff leaders based on their personality types,
and even take notes on calls and training sessions.
Here’s what I know. When planning for the future and the near future,
always make sure that you included those who are using your product, service,
or program. Leadership at the top should be listening (carefully) to what is
being said at that level. Avoid the approach of using or listening to information
from those in the middle. They are often just looking to perpetuate their role
and function for fear of losing a misguided notion of control.
I have never been in control
of anything. I ask my staff who is in charge of camp. And I wait as they reach
the same conclusion that it is and always will be the campers
(customers/members). They know it and they deserve the best from us in planning
and leading in a manner that serves.
No comments:
Post a Comment