Organizational Change: The First 90 Days

THERE'S A DISCUSSION GOING ON OVER AT the Strategic Planning for Nonprofits group on LinkedIn about leadership and change management. So far, the topic is pretty broad and most of the posters are encouraging ways to focus it. Until now. One poster, a military officer, weighed in saying that the first 90 days is the most critical for new leadership to make change. If you let the opportunity go by the boards, you're stuck with what you've inherited. He writes:

The First 90 Days are critical and in most cases can make or break a true leader in the end. The First 90 Days of assuming a leadership position are the times that you are going to affect any real change in the organization, otherwise you have got what you got for the rest of your term. -- Corey Brown

You may be familiar with the "honeymoon" period of a new job. It could last 6 weeks, 6 months, or a year. It's the time period when an organization is most forgiving of its new leader. And it's the time period when it might be the most open to change. The honeymoon period, however, is more about your employer and less about you.

For you, the 90-day time frame for change-making is imperative. Organizational change -- large or small -- is fueled by a sense of urgency. Your nonprofit hired you because, hopefully, it's looking for change along with your skills and charming personality. Those first 90 days are your time frame to identify new strategic directions and related personnel, programmatic and procedural strengths and weaknesses. It's only three months and you've got a learning curve, which you must climb swiftly. How do you prioritize your organization's needs so that you don't waste your firepower?

Knowing that mission/vision/impact sets the pace for everything the organization does, I'd start with an institution-wide deep dive into mission and vision/impact. I'd next push those discussions forward into if-then actions: if we are the organization gets kids turned on to art, then what does our board look like? then who develops our programs? then how do we promote what we do? then where are the voices of kids and families in the decisions we make?

This cascade of questions -- all flowing from mission/vision/impact -- can not only provide pathways for change, they can also underscore the urgency to make change....or to up your organization's existing game. And it can help to prioritize what must happen next.

I've seen new leaders make change for change sake and sometimes that's enough to send the message that something's different -- better -- afoot. I've done that, too. But coasting on surface change only lasts so long; if systemic change or fine tuning isn't happening concurrently all you end up with is the same old issues covered in a shiny dress. That'll catch up with you eventually.

I'd love to hear how you approached change-making/change management when you took on your last job. How superficial; how deep? What was the pay off?

Image: Directions from markddpatterns via flickr

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...

Three Most Important Nonprofit Executive Director Soft Skills

If you were asked to narrow down the list of executive director qualifications to the three most important, which ones would you identify? Would the list consist of soft skills, hard skills, or some combination? Would your list be based on the great ED you are or one you've worked for, or would it be your wish list for the ED you haven't been fortunate yet to work for? This was an assignment in my recent online class in leadership and administration for the American Association for State and Local History . I asked the class to review three-five advertisements for museum directors and analyze what these listings intimated about the organization’s past experience, current focus and goals, and future aspirations. Then, I asked the class to identify what they consider to be the three most important qualifications they would look for in a director. (Okay, so there's more than three if you dissect my three big groups.) Soft skills outnumbered hard skills, although ...

Back in the Saddle

MY LAST POST WAS NOVEMBER 2012, A LIGHT YEAR AWAY it seems, that marked the beginning of a long push toward completing a manuscript on history museum leadership with my co-author, Joan Baldwin. We finally submitted 350+ pages to our editor at Rowman & Littlefield this week. If all goes well, we expect the book to be available in early 2014. It's taken us two years to get to this point, so six more months or so of revision and production don't seem too long to wait until we can hold the final product in our hands (and you can, too!). The project put a lot of things on hold, including this blog. I'm glad to be back writing about intentional leadership -- leading by design -- for nonprofit boards and staffs. Certainly, my thoughts are now informed by the forthcoming book, in which Joan and I posit that nonprofits need to focus resources on leadership, not just management. Most cultural nonprofits are at a crossroad, as is the sector in general, wh...

Unknown said…

This comment has been removed by the author.

February 8, 2012 at 4:26 AM

Anne W. Ackerson said…

Diana,
Aligning or realigning an organization to its mission or vision is a key reason to implement change. You're absolutely right that it's not easy to do because of all the people involved -- organizational change is a group activity! In addition to assessing the need for alignment, the leader needs to figure out how to bring as many people into the conversation and problem-solving as is productive for a positive outcome.

February 10, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Jeanne Vergeront said…

The 90 day rule you highlight here reminds me of something similiar I heard years ago from an interim director. She said she had just a small window of time left to make changes. I assumed she meant she would be transitioning out of the position. Not so, she explained; she'd been in the position for almost 90 days. After about 90 days, she said, one loses one's objectivity. Seeing what needs to be changed becomes increasingly difficult. I agree that there's something really significant in this 90-day period. It should be viewed as having many more dimensions than "honeymoon" implies. Thanks, Anne.

February 12, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Leading by Design

Search This Blog