How to Succeed as a Fraudster (or not)

Wait a minute!  This is not a blog about politics.  This is a post about authentic leadership.  In today's cult of personality (note the root, "persona", or "mask") we can easily be duped into believing that someone is not quite who he or she purports to be. 

How refreshing and reassuring it is then, when folks just allow themselves to be who they are--without the persona.  It was along these lines that I recently had the privilege of  interviewing +Henna Inam, executive coach, speaker, and author of Wired for Authenticity. She also happens to be leading a tribe that is committed to bringing authenticity into the workplace. 

In our recorded discussion, Henna described her own struggles with being authentic when she worked in the corporate sector, and how putting herself out in the world by publishing the book was an act of authentic vulnerability.

For me, the topic of authenticity reminds me of a mountaineering metaphor.  When we advance in the face of uncertainty (as we do every day), touching into our true-selves is like placing a series pitons on the mountain face as we proceed.  By doing so, we can thread the rope of our lives through those pieces, and anchor ourselves to the strength of the mountain so that when adversity comes (as it always does), the impact of our fall is mitigated.  
  
As a leader, knowing who you are and leading from that perspective can be very powerful.  The trick is to first become aware of your authentic self and understand your impact on others.  The next trick is to always remember to tap into this strength when leading.

On the awareness front, I (and many leaders I know) have done significant self exploration.   Being aware of one's most authentic and compelling leadership style is a good start, however, it may not go far enough.  Leading from that style is another matter.  It's tempting (especially as a fundraising leader) to be like a chameleon to "fit in".  Over the years we become conditioned to put on certain masks in certain circumstances.  I assert that by doing so, our credibility becomes diminished, and while we may be able to achieve certain nominal results in the short run, transformational results are rarely achieved in the long run. 

If you are curious about this topic, Henna shares several good practices in her book that can help strengthen the anchors of authenticity.  And, if you're wondering how authentically expressed you are as a leader, then I strongly encourage you to take a complimentary, short (5min) online assessment that Henna created.  The assessment looks at the seven practices of authenticity, and it provides direct feedback on how authentic you are, as well as ways you can improve.

In closing I am reminded of what Polonias said to his son Laertes in Shakespeare's Hamlet: "This above all to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man".  Sound advice for leaders today (political or otherwise).

Dropping the "F-Bomb" At Work

That's right.  The word thou shalt not utter at work (or in polite company):  FAILURE!

Perhaps you missed a deadline, did not hit the mandated number of donor visits this month, or a donor you've been cultivating for some time said "no, not now" to the proposal you were counting on to achieve achieve your fundraising goal for the year. 

In dysfunctional teams, such "failure" is often met with criticism, shame, blame, and semi-public humiliation.  The implication is: "you're (I'm) a failure".  In high functioning teams, errors like these are met with compassion, growth, and learning.  The reaction is: "what are you (am I) learning" from this?

Not long ago, I wrote a post on the topic of Excellence vs. Perfectionism.  Individuals in perfectionist cultures are driven by the need to always be right.  There is an implicit or explicit the goal of not making any mistakes.  Cultures of excellence on the other hand are driven by curiosity.  Individuals here focus on always doing their best (and they forget the rest).  They know that their best can vary from day-to-day, month-to-month, and even year-to-year.  After all, a junior fundraiser's best is likely not to be as good as that of the veteran fundraiser who has more experience.

As fundraisers it is also important to keep in mind that many of the leaders in our profession became excellent in their craft/trade on the job (they learned by doing).  They went out on donor visits and had conversations  They saw what worked, and even more importantly, they saw what did not work. While it's tempting to believe that somehow we can codify all this knowledge into some compendium that can be read and applied, I believe that's a fool's errand.  A better course of action is to provide a little structure, and allow those in our charge to, as Teddy Roosevelt said: "fail while daring greatly".

Arguably, the following section of Roosevelt's Man in the Arena speech delivered 23-April-1910 at the Sorbonne in Paris, France is the fundraiser's anthem:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

So, what kind of culture are you encouraging?  One where F-Bombs are met with celebration or a bar of soap?

Accountability...Without Judgement

In his 2002 business classic, The Five Dysfunction of a Team, Patrick Lencioni describes "Avoidance of Accountability" as one of the core behaviors that teams exhibit when they are dysfunctional.  In Pat's words: "In the context of teamwork...it refers specifically to the [un]willingness of team members to call their peers on performance or behaviors that might hurt the team."

Easier said then done.  Many teams (even ones where the members have excellent interpersonal relationships) avoid accountability because of the possible discomfort involved with having difficult conversations that may be emotionally charged.

Recently, I discussed this topic with a friend who leads a mid-sized manufacturing company that has multiple teams producing products 24/7.  He was wondering if there were any "leading indicators" (or, data) that could predict team accountability.  So far, our research has concluded that there are none we could identify.

Accountability is one of the main reasons executives hire a professional coach, and shareholders/boards hire professional management to run teams. So, as a coach (and when I was running the team at Princeton) here's what accountability looks like (simple example):

Coach/Manager--Will you do X? 
Client/Employee--(Yes, No, Counter-offer).  Yes.  I'll do X.
Coach/Manager--When will you do it by?
Client/Employee--By close of business next Tuesday.
Coach/Manager--How will I know?
Client/Employee--I'll review it with you in our 1:1 next Wed. (I'll email you, I'll text you, I'll call you, etc.)

Next Tuesday 1:1 (or coaching session).  Accountability at the top of the agenda:

Coach/Manager--So, how did it go with X?
Client/Employee--It's done (or, it's not done)
Coach/Manager--(If done)  What was the result?  (If not done) Why not?  What do you intend to do now?
Client/Employee--This was the result.  Or, X is no longer necessary because.....  Or, I tried X and it failed, etc.
Coach/Manager--What did you learn?  (always harvest the learning) What's next?

As a manager, I did this weekly in the staff meeting (so as to create an environment of trust and transparency).  We always started the staff meeting with accountability of action items from the previous week.  Also, it is possible for other members of the team (not just the leader) to hold their teammates accountable in the same manner.  Especially when the action to be taken affects someone else, or someone else's team. As a professional coach working with fundraising leaders, I do this at the top of each coaching session with clients.

To establish an environment of accountability, it's important to do so without judgment or harsh criticism.  That is to say, the coach or the manager (or team mate) does not "judge" the client, employee, or team mate as "bad", "stupid", "lazy", etc., if he or she misses a deadline, chooses to change course (for good reason), or fails in a task.  Of course, should a pattern of missed deadlines/commitments become apparent, then it is incumbent for a manager to have a conversation around performance, and possible dismissal.  In the case of coaching clients, I may even dismiss the client if he or she is not being serious about honoring his or her commitments.  I have done this on a rare occasion.

How To Run a Weekly Staff Meeting That Doesn't Suck

Recently, I've been coaching with a couple of fundraising leaders around the topic of the dreaded weekly staff meeting.  You know the one: boring, sleepy, and life sucking!  The one where the team leader does all the preparation, runs the meeting, and walks out with all the monkeys on his/her back.  Sound familiar?  

Not anymore!  Want your weekly staff meeting to go from sucky to snappy?  Here's how:

1) Review Action Items and Commitments From Previous Week

-No judgement.  Did you do what you said you would do.  If so, what result?  If not, why not?

-Builds trust, commitment, accountability, and transparency for everyone.

2) Lightening Round (create an agenda on the fly)

-Go around the table.  Everyone declares his/her top three/four priorities for the upcoming week.  (These are the BIG ROCKS, not every little meeting or calendar item)

-Each individual can add agenda items on the white board for group discussion.  Best if an admin serves as scribe on the whiteboard.

-Group prioritizes by first urgent/important, then important, then urgent.  Make sure you get to the meat first and not be at the mercy of the urgent.

3) Potential Ad-Hoc Topics

-Every now and then an agenda item comes up in the weekly staff meeting that is so big it requires a separate ad-hoc meetings.  That ad-hoc meeting could be a 1:1, involve several (but not all) members of the team, may require other folks to be present, etc.

-You do not want to bog down the weekly staff meeting with a topic so large that it requires and entirely separate meeting.

-Admin usually takes the action item to schedule the meeting with the necessary individuals after the staff meeting.  It could take place that very same day, or be scheduled for later in the week.

4) Decisions/Actions

-Admin/Scribe reads out all significant action items/commitments (who does what by when) and any important decisions taken.

-Admin/Scribe circulates Decisions/Actions/Commitments to all staff immediately after the meeting.  This becomes the first order of business for next week's meeting (see #1 above).

5) Cascading Messages

-If there is anyone in the staff meeting that has people reporting to him/her, and there were decisions taken that affect those folks, it is very important that information is passed along to those folks by their manager. 

-Getting clarity around this is important.  "Manager X you're doing to let your team know that....."

-Can be added to Actions above.

Added Bonus: Each week rotate who runs this meeting to each member of the team.  By doing so, you offer opportunity for professional development and strengthen the leadership capacity of your team.

I'm indebted to Russ Sabia at the Table Group (http://www.tablegroup.com/consulting/consultants/russ-sabia) for initially suggesting the basic outline of this structure, as well as Laurie Bellero, Rajiv Hota, Kate Norton, and Spencer Reynolds at Princeton who enthusiastically embraced it.

What Is A Mastermind Alliance Anyway?

Recently, I’ve been discussing the topic of #Mastermind Alliances with several fundraisers who are forming or want to form one.  What exactly is such an Alliance? 

The term “Mastermind Alliance” was introduced into the popular lexicon in 1937 by Napoleon Hill who published the self-development classic, Think and Grow Rich which was the progenitor of the category.  In that book, Hill described a Mastermind Alliance as “the coordination of knowledge and effort, in the spirit of harmony, between two or more people, for the attainment of a definite purpose”.  This post offers an outline for the formation and operation of a productive Mastermind Alliance.

The first step in establishing such a group is for the leader (or co-leaders) to adopt a purpose, intention, or “stake” for the alliance, choosing individual members whose education, experience and influence are such as to make them invaluable in supporting the purpose.  For example, development leaders in non-profits often establish and facilitate councils to help guide fundraising efforts.  In my own past, I established a group of business executives that met as a roundtable to advance the mission of a business school from which they had graduated.  Whenever doing so, it is essential to consider each candidate for membership in the light of his or her ability, personality, and willingness to help and cooperate with other members of the group in the spirit of harmony.

Once members have been identified and recruited, the next step is to establish a definite date and time for the members of the alliance to meet.  The meeting can be conducted in-person, or via telephone/video call.  Depending on the purpose and context, the group can meet as frequently as necessary.  What I have found works best is a pace of weekly (or every other week) meetings for about an hour.    The environment should be one where everyone has an opportunity to connect, and where each member may speak freely with confidentiality, and without fear of judgment or reprisal from the others.

Once the group is established, it is incumbent upon the leader (or co-leaders) of the alliance to ensure that action is forwarded and learning deepened in support of fulfillment of the group’s purpose.   The leader or co-leaders should come to each meeting with a topic or topics that support the group’s purpose while keeping everyone aligned to the stake or intention.   The major strength of such an alliance consists in the blending and contribution all its members. From that blending comes creativity, inspiration, encouragement, support, and action.

One final note.  There are no hard and fast rules as to the number of individuals recommended for an alliance. The number should be guided by the nature and magnitude of the intended purpose.   In general, it is best to have as few members as possible in order to accomplish the purpose while maintaining an atmosphere harmony and collaboration.  Groups of 4, 6, 8, 12, and up to 24 all work well.  For example, right now, I am in the process of forming a Mastermind Alliance of about a dozen to two dozen leaders from the non-profit and corporate sectors to cross pollinate best practices from those sectors while growing our leadership competency by reading and discussing The 15 Commitments of Conscious Leadership.  Feel free to contact me if you’d like to learn more.