Funny what a difference a day makes. Yesterday the state road report for driving conditions looked like a summer days. Reports of dry and clear pavement seemed to be the report du jour. Today, I see difficult conditions throughout the state and closures starting to appear of the roads with the most snow. Sometimes we have to travel on such a day and we just realize that it is going to take a lot more time and a greater amount of energy to get between locations. However, there are times when we need to reach a destination at some point and yesterday’s conditions would have been preferable to today’s mess. One of the strengths I see in great organizations and leaders is the ability to work with a strategic filter and not just a plan. The plan is rigid. The plan and accompanying schedules are tremendous when you have to meet a deadline to meet like submitting your taxes. But plans can be less ideal when responding to opporunities. I recall sitting in a meeting with a TV screen on in the background during the morning of 9/11. I cannot recall a single detail about the meeting but I vividly remember the events of the day (as many of us do). Somebody in the meeting should have had a filter that said ‘let’s meet another day.’ The opportunity for any comprehension or input was lost due to an external force. This is an extreme example but I am more certain that appropriately timed actions can lead to extraordinary results.

What if we were clear about the outcomes we desired and used appropriate filters to help us navigate the way?

The Chronicle of Philanthropy (12/11/08) recently published a study sponsored by the Philanthropic Collaborative which concluded that for every dollar contributed by a foundation to the philanthropic sector an economic benefit of $8 is realized. The research was produced by Sonecon who projected that the $42.9 billion dollars donated by foundations in 2007 returned $367.9 billion in ‘direct economic benefits’.

In these times of reduced endowment returns nonprofit organizations are increasingly focusing on annual donors. A colleague pointed out recently that a single dollar donated annually would require $20 or more in endowment principle. Stated differently, your contribution of $25 would require a $500 endowment gift to create $50 in returns annually. A $50 gift requires $1,000 in endowment principal, $100 requires $2,000 to be committed to endowment and finally a $1,000 gift needs $20,000 in endowment to generate a similar return. Does your organization have a more realistic chance of finding a donor at the $100 level annually or a donor willing to commit $2,000 donation to endowment. In these difficult times, many endowment gifts have been slashed by a third or even half due to volatile investment markets requiring eve larger gifts to match an annual fund contribution.

$1 might be worth a lot more than any of us thought.

Research shows that it takes 18 to 24 months for an organization to repair its image after a scandal. Is your organization considering risk management when you make strategic decisions?

Lights Out

Have you ever noticed how quickly our attention focuses on what is not working when almost everything else is functioning appropriately? The squeaky door, disgruntled staff member, miffed donor, misspelled word, or flickering light. I noticed last night that one strand of lights on our Christmas tree was out. After taking a focused approach to dealing with the problem and checking multiple connections, I realized that the cat was sitting on a branch inside the tree. Now the cat was the prime suspect. The rest of the tree was aglow and decorated, nothing had changed but the lack of illumination from 50 small bulbs. My methodical process turned into frenzy and I rapidly began replaying the scene from the film Christmas Vacation when Clark Griswold (Chevy Chase) looses his composure and karate chops the antlers off the display of reindeer in his lawn and punches his fake Santa. Before I took any irrational actions I realized another possibility. Perhaps it was not a single bulb and upon replacing the fuse there was once again light.

I try to remind myself of the quality of the problem. Is it a high quality problem- the staff member wants more responsibility and therefore complains, the donor has a great idea about how their funds could have been used more effectively, multiple sightings of the misspelled word in your brochure reassures you that people are reading your material. The Christmas tree was still upright, decorated, symbolizing a tradition that was important to our family. A ten cent fuse was all that was required to fix the lights. What to focus on is within our control and perhaps we are too quick to see the big picture and the opportunity. Frankly, the fact that the broken strand of lights on the tree are now blinking provides great humor.

Lonesome Dove

I am always struck by the ending of the mini-series Lonesome Dove (adopted to TV from the novel written by Larry McMurtry) when the reporter from San Antonio asks Captain Call if he is a ‘man of vision’. The Captain reflects on all he has seen and witnessed during his life in the 1880’s West. He retorts “hell of a vision” and wanders off.

So often we want the quick and easy answer. Provide us with the lesson learned, the ‘one thing’, the new association and we will be on our way. The short one-line answer always seems so powerful and convenient since it does not force us (the listener) to anything more than pause and then continue with our current course of action.

I am reading the book Outliers by Malcom Gladwell and he discusses the need for an individual to accumulate 10,000 hours of practice before a person typically reach a level of competency to be considered an expert. To put this into a timeline, this usually equates to ten years in most individual’s lives. The eulogy seems to epitomize a summation of a lifetime of experiences without having lived the journey. Anything Captain Call had said would have been deeply unsatisfactory as as synopsis of all he had endured. Three quarters of the key characters from the start of the series are dead and buried, he has traveled the width of the United States (as we know it now) twice, driven a couple hundred head of cattle to Montana, survived epic weather, and generally lived a lifetime of experiences. His expertise seem beyond words.

Day-to-day I find myself in meetings where key decisions need to be made. An item comes-up for discussion and a course of action needs to be selected. I have always been inspired by the person who could ask the question that needed to be considered but had not been brought forward yet. I would leave the meeting thinking ‘why had I not considered that?’ I started to equate some of theses moments to personal experience and background. A good team should have a variety of perspectives and it would make sense that every participant should bring a unique question. What is shifting my thinking today is the thought of expertise. The more meetings I attend, the more decisions that are made, the more results tracked, and the more case studies I read the greater my repertoire. Eventually, I find myself waiting to hear the group’s discussion and then ask a question or two that has not been discussed but experience shows needs attention. Only through my march to 10,000 hours do I have the scaffolding being built around my own vision. If Captain Call had turned and told the report everything he knew at the end of his journey and then sent the report on the way up the trail the reporter would still be at hour number one. Perhaps we have all survived our share of endless deliberations or too many meetings but we are also moving closer to becoming experts.

As the motto of the Hat Creek Cattle Compan reads: Uva Uvam Vivendo Varia Fi (We are changed by the lives around us).

Being Stuck

I drafted a post yesterday about the slippery slope of nonprofit organizations taking a stand on issues in a public forum. I spent some time looking into the recent Proposition 8 controversy in California and the backlash on members of the Church of Latter Day Saints for their role in advocating for a particular outcome. Despite my best diplomacy I was unable to craft a reasonable post that addressed the role a nonprofit organization needs to consider when taking a ‘side’ on a controversial issue. The national media attention and energy surrounding Proposition 8 had me writing in circles and at the end I was sinking into a hole. All this made me think about how the language we use when we meet as an organization. How do we speak to each other in a committee meeting or board meeting compared with our one-on-one conversations? One observation I notice to be accurate is that the real decisions are made in the parking lot or lobby after the board meeting adjourns. I use the think this was an insult to the organization and the other board members but now I believe there is another perspective. Sometimes we communicate more effectively in a small group standing around in a public location. We quickly get to the point and make our case and usually we are talking with people we feel can influence the outcome. What if we were able to have a ‘parking lot’ conversation within the structure of a board meting? How do we hear from everybody and get their insights without an edge towards parliamentary procedures? Sometimes the best decisions are made while standing on a street corner.