|
December 1, 2007: Whose Plan is it Anyway? |
|
|
|
|
One downside of the current have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too approach to
planning (meet for a half day or so to create and adopt a "strategic
plan") is the lack of ownership of the board involved. I am
increasingly asked to tell people what content should go into a plan, as in
"what goals should we set?" In this approach, the board doesn't
really set the direction for the institution that they are charged with
guiding. Rather, they are looking for the quickest way to get a document that
will support funding requests. And of course, a hired hand like me knows sight-unseen
the magic answer to the question: “what is the least amount of effort
needed to create something credible and useful”…right?
Without adequate time devoted to commissioning data for decision making, external
scanning, analysis and having thoughtful consideration of goals and alternative
strategies, these boards (and their cooperating executive staff) are
surrendering their responsibility to the community to hired hands. Is it
really our job as consultants to set a client organization’s goals? I am
comfortable suggesting areas for goals or talking about reasonableness of goals
but these aren't my goals to set. I mean, I won't be the one trying to
reach these milestones or the one on the hook if sufficient progress isn't
being made in the organization's outcomes. I appreciate the confidence and
I recognize the apparent disdain of many board members for anything
time-consuming (such as meeting, reading, thinking and discussing) but I cannot
be paid enough to accept responsibility for relieving a board of its
responsibilities.
|
|
|
November 15, 2007: Strategy - Shmategy !!! |
|
|
|
|
In the increasing rush to make a difference NOW, I am observing that the
idea of strategy is being treated as obsolete. Most organizations are not
taking the time to consider the forces at work that affect their fundamental
ability to become sustainable and many substantial opportunities are being
passed up.
Why take the time to gather data, develop and consider alternatives when
more information is washing over you than you can possibly absorb? The point
is, is this right information to understand your competitive position in the
community marketplace and what you need to do differently to improve your value
to the community in the future? So, strategy takes time and resources to
develop and requires decisions about the big stuff.
Don't confuse taking action and tactical decision making such as,
"let's sell this stuff to earn income and we will become
sustainable." Well, you might improve your financial position with
this move. But that does not replace the value for a larger discussion of
how much earned income is desirable, how to connect this new activity to your
core competencies, how your stakeholders will be impacted by this new activity,
who staff delivering core services will be impacted, etc. By jumping from
one good idea to another, you may actually stay in business but will you
improve your fundamental sustainability? Hey, there's no law saying that you have to look
before you leap: strategy-shmategy!!!
|
|
|
November 1, 2007: Axing the Ex Com |
|
|
|
|
It's hard to believe in the 21st Century but some folks still haven't gotten the memo or are still waiting on the Pony Express!!!
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
October 15, 2007: Who Can Save Us? |
|
|
|
|
The good news is, there is no board police. The bad news is, we
have the freedom to fail.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
October 1, 2007: A Tale of Two Missions |
|
|
|
|
When discussing board recruitment, there are frequently discussions of
mission but that's not the real issue.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>
|
| Results 64 - 72 of 79 |