Thinking About Community

In the modern workplace, change is the only constant—an observation that is no less true because of its frequent repetition. As a leader, you are often called upon to lead change. How can you learn to approach change positively yourself, manage change so that it results in proactive benefits, and lead others to accept and even thrive in change?

While most organizations today are highly experienced with change, they are far less experienced with change done right. Why is that? If your organization is facing a major change and you’ve been asked to play a major role in it, you’re probably wondering that too.

As it turns out, we know a lot about organizational transformation. For over two decades, authors have written hundreds of books on change management. We’ve developed multiple models for leading change, spanning from whole-systems approaches to methods like “preferred futuring” and “appreciative inquiry” to name but a few. We’ve conducted studies and found that positive change requires, among other things, a commitment from senior management, a “guiding coalition,” and a “compelling vision.” Experts emphasize the “burning platform”: our workplace must be on fire before instinct kicks in and tells us to jump into the cold sea of change. We also know we have to answer the WIFM question—“What’s in it for me?”—when persuading others to adopt a change. We’ve developed organizational-readiness assessments, leadership-alignment and stakeholder-engagement tools, and communication plans to help us through change.

With all this knowledge and all these methodologies, why do 70 percent or more of major change initiatives fail? It’s not that any of these models or tools are wrong or useless—they’re just incomplete.

Successful transformations require more than book knowledge and theory, regardless of how sage and vetted the advice might be. To lead change, change leaders must know themselves. They must ask and be able to answer questions like these: What are my tendencies in leading change? What do I focus on, and what do I miss? What am I good at, and what can I get better at?

This powerful self-knowledge is the first step in developing change intelligence. And as leaders develop their own CQ, they begin to raise the CQ of their teams and the organization as a whole, dramatically increasing the probability of positive, pervasive change that sticks. Only when change leaders are equipped and empowered with this understanding of their personal working style can they guide others through transformation.

Change intelligence, or CQ, is the awareness of one’s own change leadership style and the ability to adapt one’s style to be optimally effective in leading change across a variety of situations. The idea behind the CQ System is that each of us has a distinctive method of leading through organizational change. Just as we can measure our IQ, our EQ, and any number of our other intelligences, we can also assess our change intelligence. In doing so, we learn a great deal about how we can leverage our personal change leadership style to lead change far more effectively than before.

The CQ System, which my friend and colleague Dr. Barbara Trautlein discusses in her book, Change Intelligence, enables change leaders to diagnose their change intelligence, equips them with applied developmental strategies, and shows them how to be powerful agents of transformation.

Endorsed by some of the leading management gurus such as Marshall Goldsmith, Jim Kouzes, and Rosabeth Moss Kanter as well as C-level executives from industries spanning healthcare to steel to retail, Barbara’s book is full of actionable advice and real-world case studies.

In addition, each book comes with a free online assessment ($97 Value) so you can identify your own personal Change Leader style and immediately take steps improve your CQ!  Along with the assessment, you’ll receive a customized report detailing strengths, potential blindspots, and targeted developmental suggestions.  It also provides insights on leading change at the team and organizational levels.

If you’re serious about making a lasting impact as a leader, I highly recommend you grab a copy of Barbara’s book today:

http://www.ChangeCatalysts.com/Book

Next time you go somewhere, as you drive back home pay attention to the landscape.  I mean really pay attention.  How does it feel as you get closer and closer to your home?

Changes are, if you live in a nice neighborhood, as you turn into your neighborhood or street you go”ahhhh.”  It’s comforting and restful.  But if you live in a poor part of town you are more likely to drive up your street and see a burned out house, an empty lot where people have decided to throw their trash, and graffiti painted on the sides of buildings.  Does that inspire an “ahhhh?”  Is it energizing or relaxing?  It’s more likely to inspire a “hmmmm.”

Now I know there are some people thinking “if these people don’t like the way their neighborhood looks, they should clean it up or stop messing it up.”  Which one of us has the energy to work all day at a disempowering job, or maybe work two jobs, then come home and take care of children, clean our house, get groceries, make sure the kids’ homework is done, do some laundry…. and the list goes on…. and then go clean up someone else’s yard?  And cleaning up and painting takes resources.  For families struggling to keep their lights on, where would the extra money to buy rakes or work gloves (for safety), paint and other materials come from?  Chances are that the blight includes potholes in the streets and cracked sidewalks — if there are sidewalks at all — and the city has shown that they don’t care.

Last year we moved from a street where people had left their homes and simply abandoned them.  They began falling into disrepair — storms came along and blew off some roof tiles, trees broke and branches were scattered around the yards.  Nobody mowed the grass for weeks and it got tall and weeds began to take over.  This was a beautiful neighborhood when we moved in merely five years earlier, now three houses on our block were unoccupied and no longer cared for.  I had to call the city on several occasions to get someone to at least cut the grass.  It took time out of my day, which was an inconvenience.  If I worked a job where I had to arrive at 8, had no phone access (behind a cash register or counter), and then worked until 5 or 6, I would have been unable to call.  Sure, there are breaks, but should they really have to be spent calling the city because your neighbors won’t mow the lawn?  The street I used to love to drive down coming home and the street that made me say “ahhhh” now made me say “hmmmm.”  The smile I used to have as I drove through the familiar streets was turning into a frown.

We ended up selling the house and moving to a nicer neighborhood.  As I drive into this one, my smile has returned.  It suddenly struck me how important life’s landscape can be for maintaining a positive attitude, for creating a restful feeling, and simply to maintain a peaceful state of mind.  As American’s we are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  I think this landscape is part of the Pursuit of Happiness that all American’s are entitled to.

So, what can we do to promote this and to help others to have a pleasant landscape?  Here are some ideas:

1. First, get to know your city codes.  Then as you drive around, when you spot code violations take note and call them in when you get a chance.  Particularly when they are persistent and it is obvious nobody is going to take care of it.

2. Organize the teens at your church or some other group to have a fundraiser to get some money and go clean up a few blocks. Work with people from the neighborhood and make sure that whatever you do is supported by them.  Partner with neighborhood leaders — do things with them, not to them.

3. Call  city council members and the Mayor’s office and let them know which parts of town need sidewalks, sidewalk repairs, or street repairs and pressure them to make it happen.

Coming home to a neat home and neighborhood is uplifting.  For young people, it may provide hope to see positive changes, or at least make them feel like they are also deserving of a nice landscape.  Providing support and advocacy to make things happen for others conveys a sense of caring, and lets them know that they matter too.  Think about what you can do to make that happen in your community, and other communities as well.

Thinking big is undoubtedly intimidating.  However, it is sometimes necessary to take big steps to accomplish change at a larger level.  In conducting forums recently I discovered that when you ask people why something is happening, they will first talk about things individuals are doing.  It takes a little work to get them to look closely at what might be going on at the larger level — policies, environment, social norms.  Perhaps it is because whenever we find something is a “problem” in our society, it is so easy to design a program and try to fix the people who are causing it.  To make change at the larger level means kicking dinosaurs, and we are all too often afraid to wake them up.  It is often just easier to take the “blame the victim” approach and assume that we need to fix individuals rather than confront the larger systems.

Let’s look at obesity prevention as an example.  The immediate response is often “let’s teach people how to eat better or exercise.”  So we set up programs and enroll 200 people, and give them a class on how to cook some nutritious foods.  But, then what happens when they take those recipes home and try to use them?  The food may not be available in their neighborhoods, or it may be too costly compared with less expensive foods.  Lean meats are much pricier than sausages and fatty meats.  Fresh vegetables are often not sold at neighborhood convenience stores, and access for some to larger grocery stores may require riding several buses.  How many people want to take two buses with three small children just to get fresh green beans, when there are canned green beans right down the street?  Then let’s look at efforts to change the school menus.  For some schools, evicting the corporate fast food stand might mean lost revenue.  Parents may resist changes for fear that their children won’t eat lunch at all.  Students may throw away the good food because it tastes funny compared with the high fat, high sodium diet they are accustomed to.

Making change in this area is going to take action on the part of civic leaders to bring large grocery stores into neighborhoods that they have shunned.  It will take enduring the push back encountered with school menu changes.  It will take investment in facilities and parks so that children have safe places to engage in active play and sports.  It will take creating access for children of lesser means to sports and activities that are typically enjoyed by those who can afford them. We might even have to address the systems we have created that make fresh food more expensive than food that is processed.  Does it really make sense that food that must go through numerous steps before going to market is less expensive that food coming right from the ground?

This is just one example of some of the changes that can be made to tackle a problem if people are willing to think bigger.  These are much harder to do than simply creating a program and continuing to try to change the people affected.  This “blaming the victim” whack-a-mole approach to intervention will likely make only a small dent in the problem, which may continue to grow despite such efforts.  Should we stop creating such programs?  No.  It’s still important to help people who want to change obtain the tools they need to do so.  Should we support the sustained change by changing the environment around those experiencing them? Absolutely.  But, to do so will mean we must stop being afraid to think and act big.  Let’s support all of those individually focused interventions by mobilizing our communities to take action to change the systems as well.

Searching for a job is a frustrating process, especially in times like this where there are few openings and competition is stiff.  Usually people who are searching will be in one of the following categories:

• Unemployed:  these are people who have either been laid off because of the economy, fired because of poor performance or personality conflict, or simply left a job they did not find tolerable.
• Underemployed:  these folks are not being paid enough to meet their current needs, or not employed in a position that fully utilizes their education or skills.
• Not happy in their current job:  people in this situations are either working outside of their field, working at a place that does not match their personal or professional needs, or suffering with an intolerable boss or co-workers.

No matter what category job seekers fall into, most of them are unhappy and highly stressed, at least in their professional lives.  Some may be facing real life crises, such as losing their homes or struggling to feed their children.  The job seekers I’ve talked to lately have told me stories that suggest that not only are they frustrated with the lack of jobs that are available, but the application and interview process at many companies is becoming increasingly impersonal and unpleasant.  During stressful times, do you want to be known as someone who added to the stress?

As a former manager, I’m well aware of how the hiring process places extra demands on time and resources.  However, it is important to keep in mind that your organization’s image is important if you want to attract the best possible candidates.  Even among those candidates that are not qualified, you never know when they will pop up somewhere down the road.  That person who is ill qualified now may be your ideal candidate five years down the road.  If they were not treated well when they applied the first time, what are the odds they will apply again at a later date?  It is entirely possible that some time in the future they may be in a position to hire you and do you want them to associate you with an unpleasant experience?

What are some things organizations could be doing differently?  Here are a few ideas:

• Even if it is time and resource consuming, let applicants know when they have been eliminated from consideration.  Allow them closure.  The job you advertised may sound like their dream job.  It is easier if they know now that they did not get it rather than keep hoping they will get a phone call.
• Don’t advertise positions when you already know who you plan to hire or promote.  Giving the illusion that there was a “fair” search is not worth building hopes among job seekers that there is a real opening.  I’ve seen this done time and again when large organizations (such as the Federal government) require departments to go through standard processes.  Over time, good potential candidates stop applying for jobs because they feel that they are wasting their time chasing pseudo openings.
• Don’t interview “token” candidates when you already know who you plan to hire or promote.  Often candidates need to find a way to take time off from their current job, or spend money on gas and dry cleaning to attend the interview.  It really isn’t fair to put them through the time or expense and build false hope if you don’t mean it.
• Pay close attention to your selection process to determine whether you are selecting candidates because they are similar to you or your staff and make you comfortable, even if they aren’t the most qualified or enthusiastic.  We all tend to want like-minded people around, but this is not the best practice when you’re building a team.  Diversity of background, discipline, personal characteristics, and education are key to building a team that can innovate and produce a range of solutions to a problem.
• Think about underlying skills and transferable knowledge rather than seeking only individuals with topical experience.  Anyone can become knowledgeable about a topic, but sometimes learning basic skills and competencies takes more work or training.  For example, a candidate may have worked in your area for years on a technical basis and be seeking a management position because they feel it’s time to move up, or they’ve hit the pay ceiling for their classification.  Does that individual have management skills and competencies or leadership potential?
• Pay attention to whether the candidate is simply looking for a job and selling themselves to you, or whether something they say suggests that they want “YOUR” job.  Even if someone is less qualified, if they are enthusiastic about the job you are offering, if they have the potential, they can be brought up to speed quickly enough.  Your organization deserves more than to be a stopover for someone who is really looking for something else.
• Be willing to interview candidates during the off hours.  If job seekers are currently employed it is really difficult for them to take time off from their current job.  If they can interview after work or even on a Saturday you won’t make them risk losing their current job, or put them in the awkward position of asking for time off.  Some candidates may not get paid for time off and will lose money they may not be able to afford to attend the interview.  If you are only interviewing at times that someone is unable to take off you might lose a really good candidate.  Conscientious individuals may not be willing to take time off for an interview if it will inconvenience their employer or make them miss a deadline, so you risk losing them if you are inflexible.
• Examine whether you are communicating too much with potential candidates by e-mail.  It’s fine to e-mail to let someone know you have selected interviewees or the candidate and they were not chosen.  However, e-mailing to ask them to interview or tell them they were selected for the job is very impersonal.  Pick up the phone and invite the individual to interview so you can discuss the best time for them to come in.  During that time you begin to build the rapport (or at least your administrative staff does).  You can then confirm the appointment by e-mail.

Having fair and friendly hiring practices can go a long way to promote your organization’s image.  Not only that, but during these stressful economic times, they will make the world just a little nicer and more supportive for a very stressed out portion of the population.

These are just a few ideas.  I would be interested in learning more about what some organizations have done to make their hiring practices more “user friendly.”

Every day we are bombarded with information from radio, television, advertising, magazines, books, the Internet, e-mails, Facebook, tweets… and the list could go on forever.  I have found information from some seemingly credible sources can be tainted, and then I have also received really good information via Facebook postings.  How do I know this information is credible?  Should I share it?  If so, how and where?  I cannot tell you how often I have received e-mails that have been passed along to hundreds of people with “Important Information” that is totally false.  Yet, people feel compelled to share this information as a favor to their friends.  Media sources have become increasingly biased and there seems to be increasing polarization between the left and right, leading to a proliferation of biased information from what we should be able to trust as credible sources.  With the current economic and political crises in our country, it is more important than ever for us to be responsible and intelligent consumers and conveyors of information.

In response to the first question about whether information is credible, there are several subquestions to ask.  First, who is providing the information?  Sometimes when someone is trying to make a case for a specific position (political, social, medical), they might gather only information that supports their point of view, and ignore that which contradicts it.  If you are dealing with an important issue, it is really important to research all sides of the argument, even if it means that you risk finding out you might be wrong.  When you look at the information, look at the method used to gather it, who gathered it, and even who funded the study.  Studies sponsored by neutral third parties are generally most credible.  For example, if you want to find out whether a drug is safe, is the best source the study that was funded by the company that developed it?  Probably not.  Think about the method used, who responded to a survey, how respondents were selected, and how questions were asked.  All of these factors and more can affect the results.  In the case of a study that was done, think about who was studied and whether they are representative of everyone, or really can we just say that about that particular group.

E-mails with stories about anonymous people, or someone’s cousin’s cousin are suspect from the beginning.  My favorite place to go whenever I receive an e-mail is www.snopes.com.  Snopes researches all rumors, e-mails, and other stories and reports whether they are true, false, or undetermined.  I’ve gone there and found that some e-mails about events that happened “yesterday” have been circulating for 3 years!  It probably annoys and somewhat embarrasses my friends, but when I get one of these e-mails and verify that it is false, rather than pass it on, I e-mail them back with the link to Snopes.  I do not hit reply all because that can just be embarrassing, unless the information is really something important.  Someone recently got mad at me because I believed Snopes over her, but considering it was an inflammatory e-mail that was denigrating an entire culture, I can live with that.

So, what do we do when we find out that some information that is flowing freely is false?  It depends on the importance of the information.  If it is just a warning to watch out for perfume sprayers in parking lots, it hardly seems necessary to send out an all points bulletin warning everyone that this is just another e-mail hoax.  If it is information about an important issue, that somehow disparages a group of people, or that might cause people to make stupid political decisions for the wrong reasons then it never hurts to present the alternatives or discredit the information.  A word of warning though, you might not make friends this way.  If someone has strong emotion-based tendencies to support a particular position, they may prefer to shoot the messenger rather than consider the message.  Another tactic you might take, when you read false information in a media source, is to write the source and dispute it (citing credible references of course).  It is time we held our media to a higher standard.  If we find a source that consistently spews false information to sway people to take a stance based on political or other leanings, then maybe it is time we stopped supporting it.

There is far too much false information swirling around us.  What are you going to do about it?

I recently had two experiences that made me very aware of the complexity of responding to an RFP, particularly a Federal request.  First, I agreed to write a proposal.  Second, I spent time reviewing proposals for Federal funds and it is a HUGE learning experience.  Although my role has been primarily to review the evaluation and evidence sections, I was privvy to the discussions of the content reviewers as well.  It had been quite a few years since I wrote a large proposal and I had forgotten just how much work, and detail, goes into writing a good proposal.  My writing and reviewing experience made it clear that this is one of those things that is not worth doing if you don’t do it well.  Not only do you expend incredible amounts of your own time and energy, but each grant is reviewed by a panel of individuals, who must also spend considerable time and effort on your proposal.  Based on my experiences, here are a few suggestions off the top of my head.  This is not an exhaustive list, but hopefully will be helpful to someone.

Organize your content. RFPs provide outlines of the sections the proposal should include.  Organize your proposal by that outline.  Use their terms for the headers.  Make it easy for the reader to find each section.

Be clear and complete. You MUST provide all of the information they are requesting.  If the proposal requires an evaluation plan, be sure to include one.  If you cannot write the plan, or find an evaluator to write it, then think twice about whether it is worth going through the effort of submitting a proposal.  Landing a Federal grant (or any grant these days) is competitive and it is important to go the extra mile to make sure all of your ducks are in order.  Be painstakingly thorough in the information you provide.

Be concise and to the point. Answer the questions completely, but do not go on for pages with extraneous information.  This is especially important for meeting page limitations.  Make sure that what you say counts.  This will give you more room to include important details.

Show local need, not general nationwide need. Nearly all RFPs ask for a need statement.  Do waste space going on about what a problem the associated issue is nationwide or in general.  Zero right in on why this is a problem in the area you are proposing to serve.  For example, say you are writing a proposal for a program that will provide food.  Simply stating that people need food, there are many hungry people nationwide, and the consequences of hunger is not enough.  You need to show that there is a significant number of hungry people in the proposed service area, and present some statistics that demonstrate the consequences of such food deprivation.  The funding agency knows that hunger is a problem.  That’s why they issued the RFP.  Tell them something they don’t know about why your target area especially needs this program you are proposing.  But do it with solid, credible data.  If you are working with an evaluator, ask them to help with this section, because they (should) know numbers.

Have a solid, detailed plan. Good ideas do not get funded.  Realistic, well-specified plans do.   It is not enough to say “we will implement the program” in many cases.  Who will be responsible for recruitment?  Who will manage the program overall?  Who will supervise staff?  You need to make sure that it is very clear to the reader that you have thoroughly thought through all of the details for implementation, including resources, responsibilities, timelines, etc.  You can lay these things out in tables or use other visuals (e.g., flow charts) to make them easy to follow.

Compare what you are proposing to what they are funding. The program you are proposing needs to be a match to what the agency is funding.  Don’t try to stretch a program into something it wasn’t meant to do.

Make sure the program fits your organization’s mission, expertise and capability. In these tight times it is tempting to go after any pot of money that is available.  It doesn’t pay to expend time and effort going after funding for programs that will extend your staff outside of their mission.  Nor is it worthwhile to submit proposals even though you lack the experience and expertise necessary to implement such a program.

Look carefully at the criteria described in the RFP. These documents usually contain some details of what the raters will be looking for.  Pay close attention to them.  It may even be helpful to use each criteria or piece of information the RFP suggests you include as a subheading and organize your proposal accordingly.  The reviewers are going to have that same list of criteria and it never hurts to make it easy for them to find the information.  Also, it makes you think through each section and make sure you’ve completely addressed each criterion.  For example, if they list “qualities of the evaluation team” as one of the criteria, create a section where you highlight specifically what makes that team appropriate and qualified for THIS evaluation.  Just because they have a PhD in evaluation does not mean they have developed the specific skill set required for your project.

Carefully read through all accompanying information before you begin. Federal grant proposals are often submitted through the e-grants process.  This requires a DUNS number, CCR registration, and creating an account in the grant system itself.  All of that takes time.  You need to do this before you even start writing so that when time comes to submit, you can just log on and upload.  Also, there are often very specific formatting requirements, such as font size, spacing, and the number of pages.  See what will be required from outside sources and get the ball rolling to acquire it.  For example, if you need a memorandum of understanding with a collaborating organization, this may take some time.

Make sure you upload all required documents, and the correct documents. When it is time to submit the grant, even if you are down to the last few minutes, take a deep breath and take your time.  Look at what documents must be uploaded, have them all ready and clearly titled on your computer, and make sure you upload the correct document.  Check your uploads after you are done.

Work with the grant writer and/or evaluator. If you hire an external grant writer, make sure they have as much information about your organization as possible.  Be available to them as needed to provide answers.  Make sure they have a clear idea of your program plan and the details.  Work with the evaluator to write SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, time bound) objectives so they flow with the evaluation.  Make sure the evaluator understands the program mechanisms so s/he can design the measurement processes to fit with them.

The theme for this year’s American Evaluation Association Conference in San Antonio is Evaluation Quality.  Throughout my career, I have seen high quality evaluations, and I have seen evaluations that were not worth the money and time that went into them.  I recently saw an evaluation report that made me cringe for a number of reasons.  Some of the shortcomings were in the measures that were used, others in the implementation of the measures, and some were problems with reporting the outcomes.

So how can a nonprofit or other entity without experience or training ensure that they are getting someone who will do quality evaluation work?  What are some things to consider?

1. There is a difference between doing research and doing evaluation.  Unfortunately, many people who have been trained in research methods and statistics do not necessarily know how to do an evaluation.  Find out if the person has been trained to be an evaluator (and not just someone who took one required evaluation course in graduate school).
2. Do not assume that someone with a PhD will be a better evaluator than someone with a Master’s degree.  Again, someone with a Master’s degree who has trained specifically in Program Evaluation or who has worked in the evaluation field for some time and is experienced may have better evaluation skills than someone with a PhD who has been doing research.
3. Do not assume that because someone is a university professor they will be better than an independent consultant.  There are many university professors who are excellent evaluators, but there are also many independent consultants whose professional training and focus has been to conduct evaluations.  Also, independent consultants often rely on this work to make a living, so they are likely to deliver quality work on time so that you will use them again and tell your colleagues about them.  University professors have a steady income and program evaluation does not affect their overall career (unless they are planning to change careers).
4. Content knowledge is not always better than skills.  Someone trained in education is not necessarily a better evaluator for education programs.  Similarly, someone who is trained in public health or social work may not be as good an evaluator as someone whose profession and skill set is program evaluation.  Many academic programs in education, public health, social work, and other disciplines offer a strong program evaluation curriculum, but you cannot necessarily assume that they all do.

The best predictor of whether someone is a good evaluator is to look at their past work.  Who have they done evaluations for?  Have they received accolades for their work or does someone recommend them?  Do they belong to the American Evaluation Association and are they active members?  Has at least some of their career been focused on program evaluation?  Do they keep up with the latest trends in the field?  Are they listening to what you need and inviting you into the process, or acting as the distant “expert?”

There are many really good evaluation professionals listed on the American Evaluation Association website or connected to other professional associations that focus on evaluation (e.g., Society for Community Research and Action, American Educational Research Association, American Public Health Association).  Check their work, check their references, ask for referrals from professionals you respect.

For some really good advice on choosing an evaluator, check out this web page:

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1351.htm

It is from the Community Toolbox, which is an amazing resource.