One of the Best Ways to Minimize the Pain of Change

At a committee meeting last week of an organization where I volunteer, it was announced that a key part of their Government funding had been cut. It's a wonderful organization that does important work, but that unfortunate impact is not what most struck me.  What leapt out at me was that much of the pain could have been minimized by doing one simple thing: communicating better.

In this particular case better communications would have manifest itself in several ways.

• Better timed communications. Making the announcement about the cuts on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend understandably panicked many people who wanted to know if they were affected and what the plan was. And whether true or not, this timing left the taste in everyone's mouth that this "story" was being buried or timed so as to avoid media scrutiny. Obviously this only heightened the upset of the unexpected news.
• More lead-time in communicating. If key leaders (for example, the Executive Directors of the affected agencies) had been given a bit of lead-time they could have prepared for the phone calls from their staff, who instead found out through the media and their peers.
• Communicating a "message track". Since it fell to the various Executive Directors to communicate this change, it would have helped them to have key points to convey, specific reasons and messages to convey even if all the details weren't quite clear yet.
• Communicating before deadlines. The affected organizations were expecting news on this funding quite a while ago (a March 31 deadline had already passed nearly 2 months ago), and delays in confirmation of these funds has not been unusual over the years. So, rather than shut down their programs, they went ahead and renewed contracts and incurred costs just as they have in the past.  If this communication had happened before the deadline the organizations could have more effectively (and at less cost) wound down these programs.

In brief, having a communications plan that considers who knows what and when, and what details need to be communicated are all critical components of any change. Whether you're in the charitable world or the for-profit world, sweating the small details of communications can save time, money and pain for everyone.

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Goal Setting 101

In September I wrote about the value of metrics and the importance of and processes for setting goals for organizations in both the for profit and not-for-profit worlds. However, this mindset can also have significant unintended negative consequences if the implications of the goals are not well thought out. We're all familiar with this idea in the context of the for profit world when goals or incentives are in place that inadvertently encourage short cuts or reduce safety. In the charitable world the impacts can be more insidious.

This is not to suggest that creativity in using data to set goals can't have wonderful effects. For example in sports a "re-thinking" of what makes a valuable player created new ways to manage a baseball team (as documented in Moneyball) and led to on-field successes. But in the charitable world we're often dealing with organizations that directly impact life and death - so how they're measured, funded and rewarded takes on an especially important meaning.

Consider these two examples.  Imagine you're a mental health organization and your provincial funding metrics include how quickly you "graduate" patients through your program. Sounds superficially like a good way to encourage efficiency. Or perhaps you're working with youth who have learning disabilities and you want to tout metrics with respect to successful "completion" of the entire process. You might argue that this helps keep the process moving along and encourages possible donors.

However, in both cases the leaders of these organizations may also be less likely to take on prospective patients or clients who present the most complex, most challenging and least likely to succeed characteristics.  Likely the very folks who need these services the most. This isn't to criticize those who have to make these tough decisions, but to highlight how metrics, efficiency incentives and goals need to be very carefully thought out.  Otherwise they can have the effect of leaving those who need it most out in the cold. Literally.

The Early Bird Gets the Worm

We've all heard the expression, the early bird gets the worm.  Except it might be more accurate to say that the bird gets the worm if it's early, or right after lunch, or even after a small snack!

According to a report earlier this year (which I read about in the NY Times Magazine) by Jonathan Levav of Stanford and Shai Danziger of Ben-Gurion University, something called "decision fatigue" can impede decision making.  Essentially this and other studies show that making many decisions can unconsciously make our brains "tired" and result in one of two situations. One, we make rash or poorly considered choices.  Or two, we defer the choice - in effect saying that anything that is risky should be put off until later in our present tired state.

The solution? It appears that a little break, particularly if accompanied by glucose (sugar) intake can recharge your tired neurons.

This presents some interesting implications for managers and salespeople / fundraisers...

• Before the big launch of your new project / initiative / program, maybe provide a little juice or pop to the assembled team
• Meet your prospect / buyer first thing in the morning or with a well-sweetened coffee (don't use artificial sweetener though as it has no effect)
• If the leadership team needs to make some big decisions pick your time (first thing or immediately after lunch) carefully

In a totally non-scientific study last week we bought fruit, nuts and tim-bits before a Campaign meeting with one of my clients.  All I can say is that the meeting went very well!

So now the logic of buying lunch for your prospect before the big Ask becomes clear.  It's not about the social interaction or building a sense of gratitude in advance: it's all about getting the glucose levels up so they'll  be less likely to put off (or even decline) your invitation to donate!

And Stanford Says...

Over the last many months I've written extensively about the worlds of charities, for-profit enterprises, management and where they all intersect.  Obviously, I'm not the only one thinking about these topics.  Here's a great article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review that makes some compelling and interesting points in the same areas.

Have a look at the article and then I'd invite to review some of my "back blogs" - I've had some other thoughts on these topics you might find interesting!

Good, Fast and Cheap: Pick any Two

There are many expressions that clearly apply in both the for-profit and Charitable worlds, and one that I've been using with a client a lot lately is "good, fast and cheap: pick any two". For people hearing this aphorism for the first time tend to smile after they figure it out, mostly because it makes so much intuitive sense.

But while the expression applies in both the for-profit and Charitable worlds, it has some different implications when used on the Charitable side.

First, Charities are so often so tight for cash that they can’t buy their way out of a problem.  In other words, where a corporation (particularly a larger corporation) might throw money at a problem to ensure it gets resolved "well / good" and "quickly / fast", charities don’t usually have those resources. Projects sometimes get done poorly or executed without all aspects being done well in order to hit deadlines.

Second, and in a way arguing against the first difference, is the impact of volunteers. This is a tool for-profits generally can’t access, and has a huge equalizing effect in the quality of work that even the smallest of charities can do. The volunteer that leads a program, the book-keeper who works for free two days a week, or the HR expert who does some pro-bono work are all examples of volunteers I’m familiar with where the work is done for charities that is all of "good", "fast" AND "cheap".

So while for larger charities expecting volunteers to do all the work is likely not realistic, it is one key way for Charities to try and deliver on their Mission on a shoestring budget. For the Charitable leaders out there, are you using volunteers to their fullest potential?

The bottom like for all organizations is that clear plans, well thought out deadlines, and a focused set of priorities means that you’re not scrambling, and can resort to "fast" only rarely and instead rely on "good" and "cheap" more regularly!