I am currently working with a voluntary organisation which is facing an uncertain future (like many) because of the uncertainty of funding from health agencies and local authorities. This year it is likely to have to spend £10,000 of its reserves. I have advised that this is brought to the Board's attention and it is minuted that this situation is understood and agreed. My advice was for the worker to make recommendations but be clear that it is the Board making the decisions.
I have also suggested that he do a monthly cash-flow for next year to show the Board when the money runs out. His first attempt included in it money that they hoped to get. I suggested that this gave a much rosier picture than was the case and that the Board had to know when the balance of funds went under their reserves figure and when the balance figure became a negative number. If anything would spur me into action it would be knowing that we were running out of money. I hope that this has the desired impact on his Board and that at some point they grasp the urgency of the situation.
I was reminded of when I was brought in very late in the day to help a long-running local organisation to stave off closure. I asked the chief officer and the chair of the Board, 'How much does it cost to run this organisation every month?' Neither of them knew. The chair of the Board was then surprised to find out that all the reserves had been spent. I wondered at this point what management information was provided at Board meetings. A couple of months later the organisation closed not because they did bad work but because they had neglected the most basic of issues - how much money do we spend and how much money have we got coming in.
In neither instance are/were people knowingly being irresponsible but in reality that's what it is. To act responsibly you have to know what your responsibilities are and then you have to act. I have observed quite a few trustees over the years and there are a significant number who think that their work is done once the board meeting is over. In these times of financial uncertainty trustees more than ever really need to step up to the plate.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Outside help
This morning I met with someone whose organisation has been going for six months. They have achieved a lot and have several learning institutions and health agencies interested in working with them. Their problem is that they could do so much (as there is a real gap in the field that they work in) but as yet they are not a registered charity and have no permanent staff. My job this morning was to reflect back what they are doing, to suggest that this is too much and to help the person to vocalise their core purpose. Less than an hour talking through things and the woman leading it had a much clearer idea.
This is the value of having an outsider to talk you through your difficulties. It's another pair of eyes and another body of experience and knowledge which will look at things differently. In my work I cannot afford to hang around. I have in the first instance three meetings to get some real change. More often than not I am only saying what they would say if they were not so busy just keeping the show on the road.
The other thing that I am able to do because I am paid to do it is to take action. This organisation has the near-offer of some money if it can produce a business plan. I can do this fairly quickly as long as I know what it is that they want to do and what they want to achieve through their actions.
In our communities and congregations it is worth getting an outsider in to review what we are doing and how effective we are. We may not have the resources to pay someone to get something like a strategic plan together but we may get some pointers about this and could perhaps ask our district or the General Assembly for some help.
This is the value of having an outsider to talk you through your difficulties. It's another pair of eyes and another body of experience and knowledge which will look at things differently. In my work I cannot afford to hang around. I have in the first instance three meetings to get some real change. More often than not I am only saying what they would say if they were not so busy just keeping the show on the road.
The other thing that I am able to do because I am paid to do it is to take action. This organisation has the near-offer of some money if it can produce a business plan. I can do this fairly quickly as long as I know what it is that they want to do and what they want to achieve through their actions.
In our communities and congregations it is worth getting an outsider in to review what we are doing and how effective we are. We may not have the resources to pay someone to get something like a strategic plan together but we may get some pointers about this and could perhaps ask our district or the General Assembly for some help.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Conflicts of interest and loyalty
In small organisations it is easy to slip into an informal way of doing things when people who are keen on following procedures are seen as killjoys - ruining the 'party'. I am all for informality but I am also all for ensuring one's own integrity and that of our organisations. There may be situations when we have a conflict of interest - but more often than not our trustees do not get any benefit from their involvement. Although some may get an honorarium and some may have paid roles within the community such as the organist, paid warden or gardener. However I think that these are fairly straightforward and people would understand the issue.
It is with conflicts of loyalities that we need to be on our guard. In small communities there are people who are married, who are related in other ways, who are close friends and perhaps who help us out, by giving us a lift, giving us flowers or a listening ear. How do we ensure that we make decisions based on what we think is good for everyone rather than just those people we are closest to or to whom we think we owe a debt? There are not many times when we have contentious decisions to make but these are the times when we show the level of maturity that our organisations are at.
In some way we need to take a level of emotion out of decision-making. Forget who our friends and family are, forget that we usually vote the same way as person X and take a dispassionate view of the situation. We cannot be wholly objective but we do need to try. As trustees (committee members) we are not deciding what is good for us but deciding what is good for everybody.
I have written recently about the volunteering that I'm doing at a local community centre and the discussions over governance structures. The chair has told me on several occasions not to upset one particular person who has done a lot of work on this. I have asked him how I give people my honest opinion that their proposal just will not work, as I have tried many approaches. If we are talking models of governance it is clear - good practice is clear - and how similar charities work is clear. This is not personal but professional. In some situations I have been in, not this one, I have been with people who have chosen to invest emotional capital in a situation - making it very definitely personal rather than professional: a test of personal loyalty.
If we are talking about people's feelings being heavily invested in being right or being in control then what can anyone do? Our loyalty always has to be to good working practices - we don't need to be unpleasant about it but we do need to be clear. We are not making a decision because of a loyalty to one person's feelings but to the organisation. Some people choose the decision which causes least upset - this is not what the law says trustees should do.
So in preparing ourselves for objective decision-making our communities need to understand how good decisions are made and that the focus of any decision is the health of the organisation, in our case our faith community, and not the feelings of any one individual. We need to ensure that the decision-making process is understood and agreed with everyone beforehand. In psychological terms we are making rational, adult decisions. After a decision is made, if there are people feeling upset, then we need to be compassionate whilst remaining 100% committed to the decision.
It is with conflicts of loyalities that we need to be on our guard. In small communities there are people who are married, who are related in other ways, who are close friends and perhaps who help us out, by giving us a lift, giving us flowers or a listening ear. How do we ensure that we make decisions based on what we think is good for everyone rather than just those people we are closest to or to whom we think we owe a debt? There are not many times when we have contentious decisions to make but these are the times when we show the level of maturity that our organisations are at.
In some way we need to take a level of emotion out of decision-making. Forget who our friends and family are, forget that we usually vote the same way as person X and take a dispassionate view of the situation. We cannot be wholly objective but we do need to try. As trustees (committee members) we are not deciding what is good for us but deciding what is good for everybody.
I have written recently about the volunteering that I'm doing at a local community centre and the discussions over governance structures. The chair has told me on several occasions not to upset one particular person who has done a lot of work on this. I have asked him how I give people my honest opinion that their proposal just will not work, as I have tried many approaches. If we are talking models of governance it is clear - good practice is clear - and how similar charities work is clear. This is not personal but professional. In some situations I have been in, not this one, I have been with people who have chosen to invest emotional capital in a situation - making it very definitely personal rather than professional: a test of personal loyalty.
If we are talking about people's feelings being heavily invested in being right or being in control then what can anyone do? Our loyalty always has to be to good working practices - we don't need to be unpleasant about it but we do need to be clear. We are not making a decision because of a loyalty to one person's feelings but to the organisation. Some people choose the decision which causes least upset - this is not what the law says trustees should do.
So in preparing ourselves for objective decision-making our communities need to understand how good decisions are made and that the focus of any decision is the health of the organisation, in our case our faith community, and not the feelings of any one individual. We need to ensure that the decision-making process is understood and agreed with everyone beforehand. In psychological terms we are making rational, adult decisions. After a decision is made, if there are people feeling upset, then we need to be compassionate whilst remaining 100% committed to the decision.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Back to policies
I wrote briefly about writing policies in February of this year. Here I am again writing about the importance of writing your own - or at least being heavily involved in what gets written.
I have just written a conflict of interest policy and procedures for a voluntary organisation that I am working with. There's nothing like actually writing a policy yourself. Many people search the Internet and copy someone else's. This has two major drawbacks - (1) you are assuming that it's a well-written document; (2) you are assuming that for each organisation the issues are the same.
In my experience of writing and researching policies and procedures there's a lot of copying and so a lot of very badly written documents. People more often than not confuse policies with procedures - there are overlaps but there are also some clear dividing lines. In fact most people's policies are procedures and there's no policy document at all or there's just one paragraph. Policy documents are vital because they tell you what to take into account if you are dealing with something that hasn't been thought of and has no procedure.
Essentially policies are about why and the big issue whats - why has the policy been written, what principles and values of the organisation does this reflect, what are the issues that need addressing and what do we need to keep in mind when making decisions or carrying out actions. Procedures are about how - how is the policy to be implemented - and this then brings in when, where, who and the specific whats. Who does what (specific thing), when and where.
It is certainly worth looking at other people's polices and procedures and seeing what they have covered. It is also useful to critique these - to help you to understand what a good policy and procedure may look like. Because I do this for a living I have a fairly standard format which separates the policy from the procedures. Having a standard format is helpful but you mustn't be bound by it - writing a policy on trustee behaviour may look quite different from one on computer-use health and safety.
You need to think - 'Who will use these, how will they use them and what will make it easier for them to use?'. You may want some appendices and just keep the basics in the main documents. Appendices may contain information about the law on certain issues in more depth than in the main document, for example equality issues. Or they may contain some guidelines from a good practice document.
You need to think of your specific situation, your organisation's values and the way that you actually do things. As long as what you currently do is safe, legal and in line with your principles you would probably be best writing up what you actually do as your procedures. When I write procedures I try to reflect what people have told me about what they do and then ask them to check carefully what I've written. An external consultant should not be telling an organisation how they do business - we can inform and advise - but ultimately it is the trustees of the organisation who need to assert how they will do things and how they will ensure that those things are actually done.
Like anything it becomes easier with practice but if you always copy someone else's you won't get much practice. It is important that organisations have some policies and procedures but they need to be good quality, fit for purpose and owned by everyone within the organisation. It is better to have a few good quality policies and procedures than a full set of someone else's that no-one has read let alone implemented.
I have just written a conflict of interest policy and procedures for a voluntary organisation that I am working with. There's nothing like actually writing a policy yourself. Many people search the Internet and copy someone else's. This has two major drawbacks - (1) you are assuming that it's a well-written document; (2) you are assuming that for each organisation the issues are the same.
In my experience of writing and researching policies and procedures there's a lot of copying and so a lot of very badly written documents. People more often than not confuse policies with procedures - there are overlaps but there are also some clear dividing lines. In fact most people's policies are procedures and there's no policy document at all or there's just one paragraph. Policy documents are vital because they tell you what to take into account if you are dealing with something that hasn't been thought of and has no procedure.
Essentially policies are about why and the big issue whats - why has the policy been written, what principles and values of the organisation does this reflect, what are the issues that need addressing and what do we need to keep in mind when making decisions or carrying out actions. Procedures are about how - how is the policy to be implemented - and this then brings in when, where, who and the specific whats. Who does what (specific thing), when and where.
It is certainly worth looking at other people's polices and procedures and seeing what they have covered. It is also useful to critique these - to help you to understand what a good policy and procedure may look like. Because I do this for a living I have a fairly standard format which separates the policy from the procedures. Having a standard format is helpful but you mustn't be bound by it - writing a policy on trustee behaviour may look quite different from one on computer-use health and safety.
You need to think - 'Who will use these, how will they use them and what will make it easier for them to use?'. You may want some appendices and just keep the basics in the main documents. Appendices may contain information about the law on certain issues in more depth than in the main document, for example equality issues. Or they may contain some guidelines from a good practice document.
You need to think of your specific situation, your organisation's values and the way that you actually do things. As long as what you currently do is safe, legal and in line with your principles you would probably be best writing up what you actually do as your procedures. When I write procedures I try to reflect what people have told me about what they do and then ask them to check carefully what I've written. An external consultant should not be telling an organisation how they do business - we can inform and advise - but ultimately it is the trustees of the organisation who need to assert how they will do things and how they will ensure that those things are actually done.
Like anything it becomes easier with practice but if you always copy someone else's you won't get much practice. It is important that organisations have some policies and procedures but they need to be good quality, fit for purpose and owned by everyone within the organisation. It is better to have a few good quality policies and procedures than a full set of someone else's that no-one has read let alone implemented.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Simply does it
I am volunteering with a local Community Centre which has been open for three months - I am on the events team. Because I chair this I get to sit on other groups and get the opportunity to input into more general issues. At the moment the trustees are developing the structure and processes for governance. It is important to remember what stage organisations are at - starting a charity is very different to being with a well-established charity which has all its structures and processes in place.
Much of the experience that people are bringing to the Board table comes from their experience with other charities which weren't new. Also some of the trustees were holding trustees for the previous village hall so had no management responsibilities. The organisation is now a company so no need for holding trustees as the company owns the land and the buildings. Therefore these trustee need to be very clear about what is expected of them from the Charity Commission and from good practice guidance.
The building cost over £1.5m to build and is fantastic. It has a lovely big hall with several smaller rooms. The Police have their post there and the County Council runs a Children's Centre. There is a cafe and a bar. It is built to a very high spec. This all gives the idea of a big place - it is an extensive building on a large piece of land and there is loads of activity. The aspiration and the reality are that this is a big thing. But the organisation is small. There are less than five whole time equivalent staff and although there are quite a few volunteers - many of us get recycled into different roles.
Any governance structure has to reflect the particular stage that an organisation is at and its size - not the size of the building it inhabits but the size of the organisation - what is the financial turn-over and how many people are involved. For such an organisation as the Community Centre any structure needs to be simple. The Board needs to be very active in leading the developments and understanding what their role is. This group of people (the trustees) are used to talking about building a community centre not running it.
I have been quite tenacious in attempting to get them to think small and simple - to ensure that the Board has a handle on what is happening and that those decisions which are not delegated to sub-groups or staff are actually made by the Board and not some other group. There only needs to be two tiers of governance - the Board and then sub-groups and task and finish groups and the staff team implementing board decisions. Any more and confusion arises.
Once this structure has been agreed the bigger portion of the work begins on getting the processes right. This is much easier with a simpler structure. A more complicated structure may emerge but it will emerge in response to need and can be managed. I appreciate that many of the trustees would like to relax a bit now that the building is open but this phase is key. Board meetings should be monthly and tightly managed.
The best approach is to encourage action plans to be written by each group meeting under the Board and to ask for exception reporting. The Board therefore knows what should be happening and only gets alerted to things not getting done (that should have been done) or new things being done (that weren't planned for).
Every time I make a proposal which differs from what is being suggested I write a full paper explaining why. It is often these active exchanges which are more educational than any training that could be offered. It's learning on the job which works really well for most of us.
Much of the experience that people are bringing to the Board table comes from their experience with other charities which weren't new. Also some of the trustees were holding trustees for the previous village hall so had no management responsibilities. The organisation is now a company so no need for holding trustees as the company owns the land and the buildings. Therefore these trustee need to be very clear about what is expected of them from the Charity Commission and from good practice guidance.
The building cost over £1.5m to build and is fantastic. It has a lovely big hall with several smaller rooms. The Police have their post there and the County Council runs a Children's Centre. There is a cafe and a bar. It is built to a very high spec. This all gives the idea of a big place - it is an extensive building on a large piece of land and there is loads of activity. The aspiration and the reality are that this is a big thing. But the organisation is small. There are less than five whole time equivalent staff and although there are quite a few volunteers - many of us get recycled into different roles.
Any governance structure has to reflect the particular stage that an organisation is at and its size - not the size of the building it inhabits but the size of the organisation - what is the financial turn-over and how many people are involved. For such an organisation as the Community Centre any structure needs to be simple. The Board needs to be very active in leading the developments and understanding what their role is. This group of people (the trustees) are used to talking about building a community centre not running it.
I have been quite tenacious in attempting to get them to think small and simple - to ensure that the Board has a handle on what is happening and that those decisions which are not delegated to sub-groups or staff are actually made by the Board and not some other group. There only needs to be two tiers of governance - the Board and then sub-groups and task and finish groups and the staff team implementing board decisions. Any more and confusion arises.
Once this structure has been agreed the bigger portion of the work begins on getting the processes right. This is much easier with a simpler structure. A more complicated structure may emerge but it will emerge in response to need and can be managed. I appreciate that many of the trustees would like to relax a bit now that the building is open but this phase is key. Board meetings should be monthly and tightly managed.
The best approach is to encourage action plans to be written by each group meeting under the Board and to ask for exception reporting. The Board therefore knows what should be happening and only gets alerted to things not getting done (that should have been done) or new things being done (that weren't planned for).
Every time I make a proposal which differs from what is being suggested I write a full paper explaining why. It is often these active exchanges which are more educational than any training that could be offered. It's learning on the job which works really well for most of us.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Refreshing our vision
I have started some short-term support for a local organisation which has been through a bit of turbulence with its board of trustees. Others have got involved in the disputes and it seems as if it were quite unpleasant for some time. The remaining board members seem a bit shell-shocked and tentative. Do they really know what they are doing? How can they stop this sort of thing happening again? Haven't they got better things to do with their evenings and weekends?
I like my first meeting to end on an upbeat note and with actions. I am fairly confident about thinking on my feet and seeing a way forward after an hour talking through the issues. I have been doing this sort of thing for quite a long time. In this instance I am an outsider and it was easy to see that this was a well-run organisation which just needed a refresh. A bit like hitting the refresh button on your internet browser. Rather than looking at the webpage from when you last looked at it, you are looking at the webpage as it is now. This board needs to see their organisation as they are now not how they were when the battle was raging.
Rather than focus on the problems I asked them what they did best - what really worked well? Their shoulders relaxed and they smiled - how good it was to be talking about what they did well rather than focus problems. They organise a series of events over the year and seem to do this very well. One which they are particularly proud of has a real community focus. They were beginning to think that to make it work better they might need to commercialise it. I suggested if the good thing was the community element then they should work on making this element bigger and better. Capitalise on what works well and do more of that.
It is so easy to be mired in the past, in unhealthy situations and in identifying problems. The focus on problems can depress us and sap our energy. We do not need to ignore problem areas but we do need to move forward doing things that come easy to us, that bring us joy and that use the talents that we have rather than those that we don't. Small voluntary and community organisations such as local faith communities cannot be all things to all people. By focusing our energies on our current resources - people, things and money - we can create something that works well enough. If we feel that we are being successful then we are spurred on to do even more.
I like my first meeting to end on an upbeat note and with actions. I am fairly confident about thinking on my feet and seeing a way forward after an hour talking through the issues. I have been doing this sort of thing for quite a long time. In this instance I am an outsider and it was easy to see that this was a well-run organisation which just needed a refresh. A bit like hitting the refresh button on your internet browser. Rather than looking at the webpage from when you last looked at it, you are looking at the webpage as it is now. This board needs to see their organisation as they are now not how they were when the battle was raging.
Rather than focus on the problems I asked them what they did best - what really worked well? Their shoulders relaxed and they smiled - how good it was to be talking about what they did well rather than focus problems. They organise a series of events over the year and seem to do this very well. One which they are particularly proud of has a real community focus. They were beginning to think that to make it work better they might need to commercialise it. I suggested if the good thing was the community element then they should work on making this element bigger and better. Capitalise on what works well and do more of that.
It is so easy to be mired in the past, in unhealthy situations and in identifying problems. The focus on problems can depress us and sap our energy. We do not need to ignore problem areas but we do need to move forward doing things that come easy to us, that bring us joy and that use the talents that we have rather than those that we don't. Small voluntary and community organisations such as local faith communities cannot be all things to all people. By focusing our energies on our current resources - people, things and money - we can create something that works well enough. If we feel that we are being successful then we are spurred on to do even more.
Monday, August 15, 2011
How do you counter absence?
I am currently volunteering at the new community centre down the road. I am helping with events. However I sit on the Development Group as I am chair of the Events Team and then get involved in governance although this is not my role. They are setting up the governance arrangements and I have been slightly concerned with the lack of clarity. So I have spoken to the governance lead and written a paper. This was seemingly ignored as the original proposal was sent out again saying that it needed agreeing at the next meeting. So I sent the paper to all group members - to help the debate. In my view they needed to be aware of all the options that have been discussed.
My problem is that I think I am 'working' with someone who sees this as a some kind of battle between people rather than as a process to get the right structure and process in place - irrespective of who first said what and how. I know it's a personality thing and I recognise how this person may have problems with my approach (or perhaps me!). I am not sure that this person recognises this or that I might have problems with their approach. Perhaps they think it's OK to ignore people as a means of expediting what they want to happen.
It is very difficult to counter absence - an absence of response, an absence round the table (the person has said that they won't be at tonight's meeting) or an absence of respect. The problem can then be that the person present becomes the one under the spotlight. I remember, when doing my social work training, that the community work lecturer who was very boring, told us that the attendance at his lectures was not good enough and that there would be consequences - we did point out to him that he was talking to those who were there who weren't the problem. He faced the same dilemma - how do you counter absence?
Sins of omission are so much harder to identify than sins of commission. And yet omission can be just as harmful and hurtful. I struggle every time I am in a situation like this. My reaction tends to be to try to be as honest and as open as I can without any emotional language or blaming. In some circumstances that can be difficult, for example if you describe a situation where you have constantly tried to contact someone and they haven't responded it seems fairly clear where the breakdown of communications is. However we do not know if someone is not connecting with us what the problems may be. So I aim for openness and honesty and a focus on the goal. What am I trying to achieve - in this instance it's using my skills to make our community centre work more effectively.
I often have anxious times about such things - I know that if people are more emotional about 'business' than I am that they will react more emotionally to any communication. Hence I try to focus on what needs to be said in plain language and hope that someone somewhere will appreciate that I am trying to do the right thing.
Such experiences lead us to recognise that whenever we work with people we enter a minefield of personalities and approaches, ours included. Someone else's absence has to be countered by our own presence albeit a more considered presence. If we focus on the task in hand and our own behaviour then we can feel that at the very least we have done ourselves justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)