A
while back I wrote about how angry America seems to be and how as
business people, we need to make sure our products don’t wind up on the
forefront of consumer rage. The piece got me thinking about another
question – why are we so angry?
I can’t help but be startled by the
mass frustration that is strewn across the television and web. And
maybe that’s the problem – maybe we are seeing so much rage and then in
turn are becoming angrier.
Iacoboni’s research has shown that we see other people as ourselves reflected as if in a mirror. In other words, I will understand a situation or an individual’s feelings because my mirror neurons pretend that I am going through the same thing.
The
traditional humanistic view is that we are all individualists, and we
only care about ourselves and our self-preservation. The discovery of
mirror neurons clearly shows that this isn’t the case, and instead, we
are wired to feel empathy.
So if we smile when we see smiling people, then doesn’t the same thing happen when we see rage? When we are surrounded by anger, then we become angrier. So despite the fact that we are actually wired to be empathetic and good, the bombardment of negative images makes us more negative.
Think
about it – there is rage everywhere. The news keeps showing angry town
hall protests, people are booing at the Opera, and pundits scream at
one another on television. It’s no wonder people are so angry. Add in genuine fear
– fear of losing jobs, fear of growing national debt, and fear of
terrorist nations – and we are a melting pot of water getting ready to
boil.
So
how do we fix this? Well, we could start with remembering what’s good
about our society as a whole. The news could show a few positive
stories for a change, and maybe President Obama can use some of that
calm charm to remind us that we are in this fight as one country, one
people.
Iacoboni
says that “labels” are what drive people apart. Because humans tend to
separate each other into groups, we lose some ability to empathize with
people on a humanistic level.
And
he's right. For example, let’s look at the healthcare debate. What’s
interesting is that almost everyone out there can agree that some
healthcare reform is necessary. But our leaders cannot find common
ground. Democrats took tort reform off the table from the beginning and
Republicans won’t even discuss a public option. The refusal to see the
debate from multiple perspectives will cause none of us to win.
So
let’s get on the same page. Let’s bend a little so that the country
doesn’t break. Let’s remember that this is our home, our nation, and
that our diversity and work ethic make us great. And ask yourself the questions below to see how you can do a better job of uniting your office, family or community.
What activities can we perform to make our office or family feel more like a team?
Is there a new product, service or discount that my company can provide to spread the message of inclusion?
Can I partner with other local companies to strengthen my local community and economy?
In my last blog entry, I wrote about the 2009 Newsweek Green Corporate Rankings. Soon after this issue was published, I had the good fortune of spending some time with HP's Director of Environmental Sustainability, Bonnie Nixon, on a recent trip to Northern California. After seeing HP on the "Newsweek" list at number one, I was very interested to learn about the woman behind its corporate shift. What was confirmed to me is that behind every major corporate transformation story is a truly heroic man or woman. While I am sure HP has a team of hundreds who have contributed strongly to this position as number one on the "Newsweek" list, I was certain after spending more time with Nixon that she was an integral part of it.
According to "Newsweek," HP leads the pack because of its "strong programs to reduce GHG emissions. The first major IT company to report GHG emissions associated with its supply chain." As more companies review the impact of GHG across their entire supply chains and learn how to make significant reductions, we can expect companies such as HP to serve as a road map to how to best transition their processes to lower emissions. What makes Nixon's story so interesting is that not only was she responsible for HP's transformation, but she has had an enormously positive influence on many other industry sectors as an active participant in multiple cross-sector consortiums. When she was given the reigns at HP for supply chain social and environmental sustainability, she deeply analyzed the practices of companies such as Nike, Levi Strauss, Gap, Disney, McDonalds, Tylenol, Nestles and Exxon.
She was able to define their sustainability stories and also acquire a deeper understanding of what was required of companies who had to manage stakeholders' expectations during difficult times. To avoid HP falling down the same path, Nixon leaned on her previous professional experiences to guide her through her current challenges. While HP was not in a crisis mode, Nixon had the foresight to see that HP could face a crisis regarding the GHG impact, toxic materials in products or global manufacturing practices if it did not prepare to address these issues.
Bonnie's experiences in environmental work run deeper than her time with major corporations. During our meeting Bonnie shared that during her collegiate years in Pennsylvania she experienced the 3 Mile Island event of 1979. This incident marked her significantly and she spent the next 20 years of her career fighting social and environmental injustices - first for the Boston Harbor Clean Up and then by creating her own environmental mediation, planning and communication firm in California. Along with her partner, she was instrumental in tackling major issues in transportation, utilities, hazardous waste and the protection of California's water systems. She was recently asked to represent the Institute of Business and Human Rights as their lead for Global Water Justice. This experience with large public sector environmental projects allowed her to better understand the impact of all forms of energy - hydro, natural gas, oil, nuclear and transportation - knowledge that would later help her drive HP's macro understanding of its GHG emissions impact.
"Fast Company" has always been my favorite business magazine as it highlights innovations in corporate design, leadership and practice. I can't imagine a better innovation than bringing a person with Bonnie's experiences to the table to help mediate and develop policy for vendor relations which address both social and environmental issues globally. Her work style and dedication have led to her trusted relationships with NGOs, vendors, customers and other stakeholders who could have blocked HP's leadership in environmental and social justice. Early on she understood that an adversarial approach to problem solving just simply did not work. Bonnie's work has directly led to a standard code of conduct and implementation measures--developed during her time at HP--for the entire electronics industry. Companies, such as Apple, IBM, Dell, Xerox, Sony and Phillips now all use this set of guiding principals and assurance system. She understands that her role is bigger than just HP or even her industry. Her dedication is helping to change the way business is conducted on our planet and will have a long-lasting effect on global impact.
Bonnie also understands that if she ran her division with a shareholder-centric model alone, the company would not have made many of the decisions which ultimately led to its current leadership style. It was only through her understanding of all stakeholders in the vendor and supply chain relationships that HP was able to advance better conditions for both the environment and the individuals making the majority of electronic products we Americans use in our homes and businesses.
So what was the HP GHG emission reduction? Over 40 percent. For this reason, it is no surprise to learn that HP leads the Green Corporate List in 2009 and will most likely maintain that position when benchmarked against other Fortune 500 companies. With all that has occurred in our country over the last 12 months, it is easy for many to find fault with big businesses role in economic, social and environmental issues. For that reason, it is always reassuring to find a company like HP who has made conscious capitalism a part of their mission and found a leader like Bonnie Nixon to drive change.
"Want to know if the stimulus act will work or whether ethanol is the right choice for U.S. energy independence? Need advice on how to beat Wall Street?" So asked the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) at the annual Moody's Mega Math Challenge. For the past three years, Moody's has awarded college scholarships and summer internships to the high school students with the best answers to these questions. In 2010, Moody's is increasing to $100,000 of scholarships.
What drives a Wall Street firm to such generosity, especially now when every dollar they spend is accounted for to shareholders and the board? I have been working with corporate leaders for the past several years to help them shift their philanthropy and their service programs in order to advance the companies' own purposes while also benefiting the community. This is the only way that corporate social responsibility will actually be effective and sustainable.
And as I reported from the Clinton Global Initiative in 2008 and 2009 here in my posts, the tide has turned. "There is a business reason for every decision we make," explains Frances G. Laserson, President, The Moody's Foundation.
"Moody's wants to encourage students to study economics and finance and see the relevance of proficiency. To think about financial services as a career," elaborates Laserson. "This is a way to reach talented national students in junior and senior years. We bring the top teams to NYC to Moody's and they do presentations and Q & A in front of math Ph.D.s. Moody's sees these students directly." As with Moody's Kiva partnership, this SIAM relationship also provides service opportunities for Moody's people when the M3 student finalists come to Wall Street for the final round and later for internships.
Starting in the early 90's, I have encouraged and assisted companies in assessing the impact of their social investments. In today's environment, companies are much more inclined to do that. "We measure everything," says Laserson.
When people think about joining nonprofit boards, they often think in general terms: arts, education, healthcare, etc. In fact, the nonprofit sector has such a multitude of widely diverse and differentiated organizations. The key is finding the board that will meet your unique set of interests, so that you will be passionate and do a terrific job.
When Bonnie Weill was thinking about joining a board in New York City, she couldn't imagine that she'd find a nonprofit that specifically combined her interests and work and volunteer experiences in both the arts and environmental awareness and action.
In fact, there was an organization that was a perfect match. A nonprofit that supplies hundreds of public schools, senior centers, and arts organizations with discarded, but brand new, supplies donated by businesses. A nonprofit that puts hundreds of tons of would-be-waste into the hands of eager artists and educators.
The nonprofit that gathers, warehouses, and distributes these supplies is Materials for the Arts (MFTA). Not only does MFTA broker the supplies but they also provide art classes to show educators how to do creative projects. MFTA, headed by executive director Harriet Taub, is funded by the City of New York.
The organization also relies on significant, additional funding from the Friends of Materials for the Arts (FOMA). In 2006, Weill was invited and joined the board of FOMA. In 2008, Weill was asked to chair FOMA. Under Weill's leadership, FOMA's fundraising has been robust, enabling MFTA to expand and renovate its warehouse and classrooms.
Demonstrating the centrality of MFTA to New York's cultural community, last month, the New York Innovative Theater Awards awarded MFTA with the Stewardship Award for providing "free costumes, set pieces and other tidbits to needy companies for three decades" and "to recognize significant contributions to the Off-Off-Broadway community." According to the NYT, "the Stewardship announcement seemed to garner the loudest and longest applause of the night."
Weill found the perfect match. That's the key to your success on a board and the organization's success.
Consumer technology vendors notoriously use the “booth babe” to grab the attention of nerdy passers-by at conferences. After all, nothing says “Check out my new widget” like a hot, clueless chick dressed as a pirate. (Sarcasm, naturally.) I was saddened to see in a post this week from NYT’s Green Inc. that the same kind of thing is happening in the solar industry. According to the post, 22-year-old Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition supermodel Melissa Baker has been hired to conduct interviews of solar executives at an industry tradeshow for the launch of a new website, www.solarvisionaries.org.
I’m not a raging feminist or anything, but the idea of using a supermodel to conduct these interviews left me puzzled for a number of reasons:
1) What are the merits of using sex to sell something, when you risk ticking off half of your audience? I suppose I should deal with the fact that sex does sell, but the target demographic for solar panels is not teenage boys, beer-guzzling tailgaters, or even gamers. Solar panels are not on the same level as clothing, cologne, alcoholic beverages or other consumer items where the use of a supermodel might make more sense. I don’t see the connection.
2) How does the use of a supermodel to conduct interviews help the new website/organization gain credibility? I understand that many a male brain will respond positively when a beautiful woman approaches him for an interview. But a supermodel-as-concerned-citizen seems like such a copout to get the needed interviews for the site launch. I don’t mean to imply that Melissa isn’t intelligent, but there are plenty of women working within the alternative energy sector that would have been much more qualified for this position.
3) When will we get out of the dark ages and simply think about how to connect with the audiences we’re trying to reach? Let’s take Solarvisionaries’ argument that solar panels still carry with them a nerdy stigma. By their logic, using a supermodel as a spokesperson will make solar sexy. For what it’s worth, even if solar panels were “cool” and “got you the ladies,” there are still the very real barriers to adoption including a) cost and b) ease of installation. A focus on these issues would be more effective in reaching the masses.
The new book SuperFreakonomics by Drubner and Levitt has become more than a mere book – it is a news event itself because of the chapter about climate change.The blogosphere and mainstream media are crackling with controversy over this section, practically guaranteeing huge book sales.This is no accident I imagine.
The book takes on climate change like other topics the authors address – they are intentionally provocative and good at it.They question the basic science behind climate science, question the value of addressing it, and question the value of carbon dioxide emissions.They question whether cap and trade will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tout the advantages of pumping particles into the atmosphere to simulate the cooling impact of a volcano.Given the prominence of the authors, the heated nature of the climate discussion, and its profound global importance, it’s no surprise that this chapter has earned such a dramatic response.
They are authors, and best-selling authors at that; they know what they are doing when it comes to selling books.The authors know that getting people excited or angry gets attention, interviews, airplay, and book sales.I liked Freakonomics, which used the same strategy, describing Levitt as a “rogue economist”.Last time it was abortion, and this time it’s climate change.Same strategy though.
It’s like a lot of our public discourse.The discussion gravitates toward the extremes because the extremes get attention.The extremes sell books, draw web clicks, and draw TV viewers.
I haven’t read the whole book, just the part about climate change, but if the rest is anything like Freakonomics it’s probably a good read. You really can't go wrong with monkeys learning how to use money and using it to buy sex. Ka-ching. One thing the book shouldn’t do though is to drive climate policy.As talented as Drubner and Levitt are as writers, they aren’t climate scientists.Not many of us are, so a lot of what we hear about climate is from second, third, and fourth-hand interpretations of the science, or completely disregards it.Climate change is a complicated story and an extremely important one.We need to listen much more carefully to scientists, and craft policy based on the consensus scientific opinion.
Dubner claims to only want to stimulate discussion, and its hard to argue against discussion without sounding like one of the climate change acolytes they describe, but the danger is that they will drive the climate conversation off course at a critical juncture.
A recent poll found that only 57% of Americans believe that climate change is happening.That’s a big drop from other polls, and may reflect the complexity of climate change, and reluctance to deal with it now, when people are still worried about their jobs and mortgages.That’s where the middle is, and that’s where the discussion needs to be, talking about what climate change really means for them.We need to have discussions based on solid science and looking for cost effective solutions that work for everyone.We need to make sure the incentives are right to drive the right economics that ensure both a strong economy and a healthy environment.There are immense opportunities ahead for businesses inventing cleaner and more efficient ways of doing things, opportunities driven by putting the right economic incentives in place.That’s something that would have been interesting to read about.
There are solutions that can get us away from extreme polarization and back toward making real progress.In a recent New York Times Op-Ed Senators John Kerry (D - Massachusetts) and Lindsey Graham (R – South Carolina) proposed how to do this, saying we should grow renewable energy and take care of energy efficiency, but also consider nuclear, clean coal, and offshore drilling.I don’t love all of this, but if a compromise like this can get action on climate change moving forward, we should consider it.
Maybe the authors themselves hold the key to understanding the current controversy.Levitt and Drubner write in their books about the ways that incentives and punishments drive the choices we make.Sumo wrestlers cheat and monkeys learn how to use money because of the incentives they are faced with.The key to understanding SuperFreakonomics is to apply the authors’ own principles.
What are the economics of SuperFreakonomics? Look at the incentives and punishments that might influence authors of best-selling non-fiction, and then trace them to their impact on behavior.Stimulate controversy and you nab big book sales.Fail to stimulate controversy and you might be on your way out faster than you can say “yesterday’s news”.Viewed in this light, the whole thing makes perfect sense, just like the cheating sumo wrestlers.
I feel like a big of a rogue economist myself now.I’d write a book about the surprising impact of incentives in media, except that they’re not really that surprising at all.Maybe I’m just a little superfreaking jealous.I’ve written a couple of books myself - I’ll have to take a lesson from these guys for my next book.I’m going to call it “In Your Face Stuff Guaranteed to Get Your Goat, and Your Money.”Look for it soon at bookstores near you.
Glenn Croston is the founder of StartingUpGreen.com and the Green Biz Blast, and the author of "75 Green Businesses" and "Starting Green", helping people to start and grow successful green businesses.
Dell had its much-ridiculed Della site – a masterpiece of misunderstanding of a large and lucrative customer segment called women.Is British Airways far behind?I wish you could see the image currently on BA’s frequent flyer site, and see how well you think the image captured the interests and lifestyle of at least 50% of the business flying public (in other words, women).
In this image, a little stick man at the center is labeled "You." He looks like the guy on the outside of many public bathrooms for men. He is surrounded by a bevy of other figures, some in little stick trousers, some with little broomstick skirts. The copy reads: "With a complimentary companion ticket on your next trip, who will you take? Where will you go?" The choices are clearly labeled your wife, your daughter, your son, your brother, your boss, your dad, your mom, your best friend (in trousers). (Believe me, it is more compelling in a visual. If you can, go to the website, and check on promotion.)
The three questions that popped to my mind when I unsuspectingly clicked on this promotion on October 13 and smacked into this graphic were: What’s going on here? And, how could this have happened at my beloved BA?I have always really enjoyed flying with them.Finally, don’t they like me? Surely I am not the only potential British Airways business passenger who is not a married man.
The first explanation at which I grasped was corporate sabotage by a disgruntled internal marketing department determined to destroy BA’s brand with half its audience – more than that if you consider that 63% of new business travelers are women.Or perhaps it was an external assault, a thoughtless bit of artwork by poorly chaperoned external designers with no sense of the BA brand.Although I immediately wrote to BA Customer Service to find out, I have yet to get a response so can only speculate.
With or without their input, I can say this: in this instance, BA did a pretty poor job of translating the external market into internal decision making and action taking, a set of activities that is at the very essence of leadership.As the airline’s strategy was executed through its marketing decision-making, it completely missed women, unmarried people, and married gays and lesbians.(It also missed people who might want to travel with their sisters but that is perhaps a little easier to understand).
Think about this miss in terms of the five core elements of leadership:
Strategy: The target market for this offer was either mis-defined or not defined at all (either way, a strategic error)
Execution: Whatever team worked on this project, and whatever decisions were made never caught the error.Was no one thinking about BA’s market positioning or customer during the execution phase of this promotion?
Talent: Who worked on this project?Only married men (without sisters)?Or were there other sorts of people who either didn’t speak up when surely they must have noticed the problems, or, if they did speak up, were neither heard nor heeded.
Human Capital Development: Who will be working on such projects in the future?Are the people and culture being developed for the future – or for the 1950’s? Who exactly is being engaged, rewarded, promoted? Outcomes such as this are directly linked to culture, and culture is the result of who is in and who is out, who is rewarded and promoted, and for what.
Personal Proficiency:Do the people who worked on this have the awareness to realize that this is a problem, and then to act on it?Consider that I wrote to BA two weeks ago alerting them to this issue and have not heard anything back. Another friend and colleague, Jean Williams, wrote to them at the same time and heard last week that this webpage was being examined “at the highest levels.”So far, nothing has changed.Either our little 50% of the market is not viewed as having an important voice, or decisions and actions in BA take an inordinately long time.Either way, there may be a significant issue here that springs from some individual deficiencies.
Am I just being a PC American? I enlisted Jean to do a little surveying because we could hear the backlash winding up across the Atlantic already. Here are some reactions we have sought from what we have gamely tried to make a variety of sources:
“It probably is sexist...?” (female HR executive)
“Stupid rather than sexist, I guess. And crudely drawn at that.” (female board member)
“Piss poor and awfully sexist.” (female executive in financial services)
“This excludes me and my partner.” (senior level consumer products executive, a gay male)
“How lame.” (senior level female scientist)
“I’m most mad that it doesn’t allow me to take my sister.” (female board member)
“Why is the daughter so big and the wife so petite? Why is the mom bigger than the wife?Why is the son so small?Why does the dad have that strange blinder across his face?”(undergraduate psychology major)
“I know someone who will sue them.”(a prominent lawyer)
[blank stare](good male friend, a successful senior executive in manufacturing, early 50’s)
What any of us see is indeed a Rorschach of our own worldview and preconceptions – another reason to be very careful when drawing pictures, writing commentary, selecting and guiding a marketing team, or attempting to be that most difficult thing: a leader.
Would love to hear your reactions.In the meantime, I will hope to hear from BA. I hope they still like me.
California’s state budget gap was about $40 billion this year. New York’s some $50 billion. Every state in the Union is struggling with drastically lower revenues and higher costs for services of every kind, washing state capitals with red ink. At the polls next year, governors who are facing elections - - including Governor David Paterson of New York - - may find themselves politically drowned by such gargantuan deficits.
So, faced with closing schools, hospitals, fire stations, and kicking struggling families off of welfare roles, governors are turning instead, like the famous bank robber Willy Sutton, to wherever the money may be. In New York’s case, at least some of it is hidden in a carbon piggy bank.
Late last year, ten northeastern states started a cap-and-trade system covering carbon emissions from powerplants. Each facility must buy its initial “allowances” for whatever they emit from the state, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. Each state decides how to spend this money, but generally they have committed it to energy efficiency programs.
That’s where Paterson took a bold gamble. He proposed using $90 million of the state’s $202 million in carbon allowance revenues this year to subsidize the state’s budget deficit. Many criticized the move, fearing that environmental and energy efficiency goals won’t be met and that other states might copy the move, making matters worse. That may also cost the Governor some “green” friends, hurting his chances at the polls next year.
But maybe he did New Yorkers - - and the rest of us - - a real favor. First of all, more than half the carbon money still goes to energy investments. For example, Paterson recently announced a buy-back program for inefficient old appliances. That will save lots of energy as people trade up for newer energy-efficient models, stimulating the economy at the same time, just as the “cash for clunkers” program helped car dealers.
Of course Paterson could have proposed higher taxes instead of raiding the carbon piggy bank. But is it a good idea to tax workers and businesses more, penalizing hard work, or is it better to essentially tax waste and thereby encourage conservation? Many have suggested this very idea as a way to deal with climate change - - tax carbon polluters, which raises the cost of electricity and gasoline - - but lower taxes on payrolls and businesses. Such a zero-sum “tax shift”, it is argued, would reward hard work and discourage wasteful use of energy, both worthy outcomes. In any case, it would force users of energy to pay the true cost of their supply - - a cost, measured in climate change impacts, that is borne today by everyone regardless of how much energy they use.
Climate activists’ immediate reaction to Paterson’s move was negative, but perhaps it’s worth another look. If governors everywhere knew there was carbon piggy bank in their state, we might soon see more support for carbon cap-and-trade systems and quickly earn bi-partisan support for tackling climate change. Given that Congress is stalled on climate legislation, this may be one of our best bets for an American contribution to a global deal in Copenhagen later this year. If that happens, we will have Governor Paterson to thank for being bold enough to get us started.
Last week the Iraqi government launched a new version of its official history. As students return to school from the Ramadan holiday they found new history books waiting for them that include the major changes the nation has experienced in recent years and open up topics that were once censored.
This power to write history is sacred. As Oscar Wilde said, “Anybody can make history; only a great man can write it.”
This power comes from the fact that the narratives
we live in have a powerful, hidden hand in determining how we interpret
our environment. This fact, long noted by Hindu and Buddhist
traditions, is supported by an ever-growing body of scientific
knowledge.
Innovators who significantly impact the world seem able to recognize when we are living a story with a dead ending. Then they abandon the current tale to enter a new one that empowers people to act when no one else will.
I’ve been researching narratives relating to business, and I’ve found three lessons that can help us better leverage the full power of storytelling.
1. Choose a new starting point
Like
turning the rudder of a ship, you can change the future people
anticipate by retelling the past. One key is to strategically pick the
right starting point.
Let’s consider Hewlett-Packard as an example of this principle. Since 2006, HP has engineered a remarkable turnaround under the leadership of CEO Mark Hurd. But I believe the groundwork for this 180-degree change was laid years prior under his predecessor Carly Fiorina.
Core to her strategy was the idea of “resetting” the HP story by
reaching back to HP’s original roots. The company’s internal and
external messaging brought to life the story of the company’s founders,
Hewlett and Packard, working in their garage, building their first products. In fact the HP “garage” was elevated into an icon that roots the company in a common starting point and grounds them in a history of invention.
2. Show the system is stuck
People are willing to change only when they grow discontented with where things are. In 2007, Michael Dell took back the reins of his company. Dell, the company that had revolutionized the computer industry by introducing a direct-to-consumer model, was in serious trouble as competitors began copying that model. With its stock sinking, the company turned to its founder for help.
In trying to craft a turnaround, Michael Dell has played on the story, as all narrative experts do. He repeatedly says that “this is a defining moment in our history and in our relationships with customers.”
The
first part of his message is a wake-up call: the future that Dell
employees and partners are imagining is not the right one because the
old direct model is no longer unique. He then paints a future of
promise: “We know our competitors drive complexity and needless cost
into consumers’ environments. We
intend to break this cycle.” In other words, he is arguing that the
competition is stuck and this presents an opportunity for his company.
3. Repeat
Embedding a new story requires
far greater effort than you might think. Communicating your version of
the past and future—your vision—demands repeatedly delivering it to
your audience using creative methods to remind them and keep them convinced.
I’ve worked with several companies to embed new stories that alter behaviors and thereby build a competitive advantage.
It usually requires carefully picking the stories that illustrate the
turning points you want people to remember, then telling them over and
over in meetings, by email, through visual displays, in continuing education classes and through textbooks, like the Iraqi government.
But the effort is worth it. Every
leadership book underscores the importance of maintaining a long-term
vision in the minds of your people. This vision is a product of the
past, of the story people tell themselves about what has happened and
therefore what to expect in the future. For your innovations to succeed
you must revise, edit, and rewrite prevailing stories.
Ask yourself the questions below to see how you can rediscover your past and write a new success story.
1. Where did this idea come from?
2. How did the company find its current direction?
3. Is our mission clearly stated?
4. How can I remind my employees that they are working toward something bigger than themselves?
5. How can I use my company’s stories to engage and inspire my staff and my customers?
Yes, positioning the right person as the board chair is key. Because the chair has the greatest influence on how the board uses its time in meetings and in between meetings, who will be on the board, and who will be groomed for future leadership.
I have seen organizations rise or fall, depending on the board chair's effectiveness. Even the most extraordinary nonprofit CEO cannot achieve the enterprise's fullest potential without a good board chair.
Here's how an effective chair uses her time for the greatest benefit to the nonprofit:
Understands and communicates the mission to investors and key constituents, including making the case for support.
Works in partnership with the CEO to create board meeting agendas that are focused on key strategic issues, and engages board members in productive and meaningful discussions, and decision-making.
Identifies and develops board members for future leadership. Leadership succession planning is vital for the organization's longer term sustainability.
Works in collaboration with the Board Governance Committee and the CEO to identify and recruit new board members from diverse backgrounds and perspectives who have the experience and relationships to be valuable to the organization.
Is a lead financial contributor to the organization and asks other board members for their support.
Meets with each board member individually at least once a year to help each person to discover how they can be most useful.
My advice to board members, nonprofit CEOs, and funders: the most important thing you can do to help build stronger boards is to position the right people as board chairs, and then give them your fullest support. That's how to strengthen the nonprofit sector in serving our communities--regionally, nationally, and globally.
