Can You Plan Without Passion?

WELL, I GUESS THE SHORT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS 'YES'. Plans are concocted everyday for all sorts of things from grocery lists to multi-year programmatic initiatives and I can see where many of them can be accomplished with little reflection and less excitement for the results. There are proponents who assure us that even the most complex plans can be achieved with short, highly focused bursts of effort. And, indeed, that's possible. But it seems to me that any plan will lack dimension and luster if it's written as an internal 'beat the clock' exercise or a requirement to satisfy someone else's desire.

The best planning is borne of possibility and one's own desire to marry the here-and-now with the what-if's and can-do's. Its underlying thesis has everything to do with making aspirations reality, even if the aspiration is as universal or as necessary as getting out of debt or revisioning the work of a downsized staff.

When done right, most types of organizational planning take time and talent to complete, but it is rarely a draining experience, often it's just the opposite. Yet, I've seen many organizations approach the idea of planning as a burden, a maze to get through, or as one trustee exclaimed, "So we don't have to do this again for another 50 years!" Really???

Is it really mind-numbing or wasteful work to consider an organization's future beyond the regular board meeting? Is it somehow inappropriate to chart a big or better future for an organization rather than letting circumstance chart it for you? Is the idea of thinking beyond one's personal interests too big a leap to take? Too risky?

All I think I can say in response is if an organization is willing to invest its resources to any degree to plan for its future, why ever would it not want to be fully committed to exploring the possibilities, the potential and, yes, the pitfalls that lie ahead? Why ever would it not want to dig into bridging the gaps of what exists now with what could be?

I guess the question isn't so much can you plan without passion as it is why would you purposely plan half-heartedly? Why would any organization waste such an opportunity to lift up the hood and examine the engine? And why wouldn't that be exciting as well as challenging?

Image: Neighborhood Plan Update...from litlnemo

What Would Make You Turn Down an Invitation to Join a Board?

THERE'S SO MUCH WRITTEN ABOUT RECRUITING BOARD TALENT, I thought I'd spend a little time thinking about it from the prospect's point of view. Clearly, there are boards where the line is long to get on them. But what would make you turn down an invitation? Here's a short list to get the conversation started: 1. You've had no prior exposure to the organization. Your immediate reaction is "did you pull my name out of a hat?" (Is that lady in the picture the head of the Nominating Committee?) Seems as though there must be a hidden agenda at work (like you're rich and once you become a board member you'll pour all your resources into the organization) or the organization is simply looking for any warm body to fill a seat. 2. The organization doesn't have a good reputation. There's something to be said for street cred. An organization that's floundering may be strengthened by your participation or you may find yourself sucked into...

What to Do With Dead Wood on Your Board?

MY POLL ASKED WHAT ONE BOARD DYNAMIC YOU would change this year and the top response was "remove dead wood". For my first post on this topic I'd like to start with two obvious facts: 1) most boards have some non-performing or under-performing board members AND 2) most boards already have mechanisms in place for removing dead wood...or at least the non-attending dead wood. Those mechanisms are found in the Bylaws and perhaps in a board job description. Few boards, it seems, invoke these mechanisms, mostly out of fear of offending the offender. We end up side-stepping the dead wood, dancing around it, ignoring it, wishing mightily it would go away. Oh, and complaining about it. So, even though the dead wood isn't doing much, it's sapping the energy and focus of many others. (There must be a Law of Physics about this!) Where to start and how to implement? While removing dead wood is not the most pleasant of responsibilities, it does not need to be -- and s...

Change for Your Board in 2010: A Polling Update

WE'RE A DAY INTO MY LAST POLL (SEE RIGHT) AND the responses are clustering in two areas: 1) removing dead wood from the board and 2) using better/different tools to make decisions/evaluate performance. There are still six days left for your colleagues to cast their vote! In the meantime, those of you who are in need of tools for decision-making might want to check my posts on taking stock here , here and here .

Sarah Griswold said…

"Why would you purposely plan half-heartedly?" So they don't upset the system!

October 18, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Anne W. Ackerson said…

Right!

Or because a funder requires a plan...

Or....?

October 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM

We've experienced both those scenarios. In both cases, the planning is really covering up being change-averse. The power of the status-quo swamp is really powerful!

October 19, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Yes, I've seen plenty of plans that do nothing more than reinforce the status quo. Instead of being a catalyst for change, these plans become the 'excuse' not to.

When you're dealing with a plan like that, what are some guerilla tactics you might use to introduce create change?

October 21, 2011 at 7:29 AM

Leading by Design

Search This Blog