Managing Change: A Few Random Thoughts

How to make change without turning off the volunteers? That was a question posed at the recent annual meeting of the Western New York Association of Historical Agencies in Buffalo.

Since we humans generally tend to be change-averse creatures, I think that's a good starting point when considering how to approach change within organizations. Whether it's changing the paint color or the exhibits, the annual fundraising event or the number of standing committees, recognize from the outset that some folks will be down-right unhappy (and others merely perturbed).

It's imperative to embrace those affected by a change with the process of decision-making and/or solution-finding. Why? Well, obviously, the more ownership a person feels in a decision, the more that person will support it. And ownership is about having some sense of control. Many people opt out when they feel they have no control over decisions, over change that is affecting them.

Easier said than done, however. Any decision involving stakeholder input will take longer to reach, simply because of the logistics of getting that input (not to mention in what new directions that input could take the process). Knowing what change decisions require what kind of and how much stakeholder input is a leadership attribute worth developing.

Board and staff leaders have a responsibility to develop a change process that includes the folks most affected by it. And to do so fairly soon in the process. While final decisions generally rest with leadership, the fact that others have had opportunities to participate in the process -- and are kept informed about the process -- are critical ingredients to keeping most everyone on board with the outcome.

That brings me to the notion of keeping people informed. Certainly, there's such a thing as too much of it (just read my previous posts), but not enough of it is equally harmful. Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. Folks will make up information if there's no real information (or not enough of it) available. When no one is talking, that's when the rumor mill fires up.

Chances are you'll always lose someone to change. The folks who can't get on board with a change are not going to be happy staying anyway, so it's best to let them find a new relationship with your organization or find another organization.

Avoiding change for fear of losing volunteers or staff should not be the sole criteria. Change is first and foremost about making better, stronger organizations.

Photo: Editorializing on change by jcgr

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, where nothing is qu

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 .

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

Leading by Design

Search This Blog