This blog is now located at http://integrated-outcomes.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click
here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://integrated-outcomes.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.
sickness and productivity
I have not been able to blog for a couple of weeks due to a persistent sickness. This illness has lasted almost six weeks - the longest sickness ever. However, because of this sickness, it has made me think of ways to prevent another bout of this magnitude.
I saw a study that showed that green buildings save companies money because people are sick on average 2.8 days fewer than they had been when they worked in regular buildings. Interestingly enough, companies are still not prepared to invest more money in green buildings...yet.
I think, though, that we are entering into a period of pandemics. Between SARS, and now the H1N1 flu virus, we are becoming more aware of how the environment can affect our health. When people begin to be sick for weeks, productivity will show a dramatic decrease - not just a 4% difference as was proven in the above study. When that happens, greeen buildings or any type of product that prevents the spreading of viruses will be of high demand.
The other issue around sickness is whether employees should stay at home. The obvious response is that employees should stay home so that they don't spread the disease to others, but how many employees are self-employed or are paid for hours on the job? Too many. How do we deal with people that are legitimately sick? Moreover, we are due for a pandemic so with any upcoming "pandemics", do employers provide enough sick time for employees to fully recover or will employees have to return to work still sick and still contagious in order to maintain their pay and/or holiday time?
Something to think about ...
Labels: productivity, sick leave
what kind of holiday do you like?
In Canada, we just finished celebrating our Thanksgiving holiday. I have to admit it is my favourite holiday. There is no gift-giving and financial and emotional stress associated with each gift. We come together and do a potluck dinner complete with a stuffed turkey, home made pies and vegetable dishes so there is very little advance work on one person's shoulder. I cherish the time to enjoy family in a very simplistic way.
To me, Chrismas is the opposite. I like the inital thrill of the first snow fall and of hearing Christmas carols, but the holiday is now a holiday season. We hear Christmas music continuously for about three to four weeks. We are constantly hit with Christmas advertising messages to keep buying. We are anxious about our gifts. Are the recipients going to like the gifts? Should we spend more money? We seem hard pressed to try and remember the reason for Christmas or for any religious holiday since the daily messages are to keep buying!
As I was thinking about the holidays, I also started thinking about how some executives like to run their organizations like some of the hectic holidays. They thrive on chaos and the hussle and stress. Other executives thrive on simplicity and peacefulness. I wonder if these executives celebrate their holidays in the same way they manage organizations?!
I know that when I ran an organization, I had a goal to take a holiday in the Grand Canyon six months after start-up. That meant I had to get the organization to a calm state where I could leave without worrying about a crisis. Coincidentally (or not) I also crave ways to simplify my holidays so that they are relaxing and thoughtful.
Many want to know what their leadership style is ...perhaps it is revealed in your preference for how you like to spend your holidays.
Something to think about!
Labels: leadership styles, non-profits
Wealthy charities
A couple of blogs ago, I wrote about how executives should be measured on performance and should be rewarded upon that. I suppose I had better be clearer, given the previous week's scandal in Toronto, Canada.
"Sick Kids charity boss gets $2.7 M send-off" was one headline of a major newspaper in Canada. Because the head of the foundation was given an early send-off, the foundation had to buy him out of his contract, which included his $600,000 salary. This story hit all the major papers in Canada, but it seemed to die out rather quickly without much follow-up. The foundation has taken responsibility and promises greater transparency. Their next Foundation President will make $400,000 plus bonuses- still a hefty amount when compared to other heads of organizations that do more than just fundraise.
Charities are supposed to be accountable in delivering services to their clients. Fundraising should be based upon need. We need $1000,000 to support... therefore, we need to raise $1,000,000. Yet when you hear that 40% of every dollar raised goes to fundraising, you wonder whether the charity has forgotten who the client is and also whether the money raised is necessary for the clients or is it just a fundraising goal. Turning it around, if the charity only raised 60% of the goal, then that would be sufficient for paying for the client services ( which includes research). Part of the 40% should go to pay for costs incurred, but over 20% could support another charity or many other charities that are also in need. It should begin to make us skeptical of fundraising goals and of rewarding those charities that raise money just because they want to reach a goal, not because there are well-defined projects to fund.
Something to think about.
Labels: charitable excesses, scandals
"us, them"
Don't you find it ironic that so many groups that are working together helping to support a cause are also working against each other? It is referred to as the "us, them" syndrome.
Board members can exclude Executive Directors from social functions and key strategic decision-making because the Directors are not one of them.
Executive Directors and senior management can set strategies that impact clients without consulting their front-line staff who are the ones dealing with the clients regularly.
Staff members can treat clients like they are sub-human and can feel that clients don't need the same priviledges as they do.
Agencies can treat funders with disrespect. They will take the money, but they don't feel the funders have the right to question how they use the money or what impact it will make.
This list can go on, but these are the common types of complaints I have heard over my ten years of providing workshops. Eliminating these attitudinal barriers are not easy because they are not obvious to most unless you are looking for them and yet the victims of these attitudes do not forget easily. I can hear and feel their anger.
Why do we create these barriers? Do we like to have power over others as others perhaps have or have had over us? Do we still like to be in the "in" crowd and demand others to recognize this fact?
Yet, when people can overcome their "us,them" attitudes, it is truly heartwarming. I remember working at an agency and there was a former cop working the security desk. This man was unpleasant to our clients and their children. For months, he would frown, but suddenly one day, I saw him smiling and playing with one of the young children. His whole countenance had changed. The child had been continually smiling at the man until one day he could no longer keep his distance. From that day, the man couldn't have been friendlier to those who were friendly to him. In this instance, it was a race issue. I say was because he no longer saw race as a difference. He began to see the child like any other child, and I am sure his days became pleasanter.
As part of the human race, we seem to look for differences and in some countries we celebrate differences, but is it at the expense of finding what makes us all the same first?
Something to think about!
Labels: managing non-profits, us them attitudes
Executive Pay for Performance
Over the past couple of weeks, there has been much discussion around executive bonuses. Should executives be paid bonuses when their companies had received bail outs from the government? Has their performance justified the bonus?
In the non-profit sector, bonuses are given very discreetly, if given at all. Many people feel that executives in the non-profit sector should not be paid very much so salaries are not readily disclosed. Discussing bonuses could quite possibly be the kiss of death! Is that right?
Personally, I think executives should be paid bonuses, but only if they improve their bottom-line which if any one has followed my blogs means that they have improved client success - not that they have just been financially sustainable. However, I also believe that agencies that are successful with their client results will also inevitably be successful in raising money, if they know how to make the right ask.
Executives, in the non-profit sector, have much to contend with on a daily basis. When you are working with people and your clients are all people, every day is different. There are so many potential issues that can arise and it is the very good executive who can strategically reduce issues and create solutions that will in the end mean greater success for the clients and everyone associated with their success.
Defining and measuring organizational outcomes is a fairly accurate way to measure overall client success. It is a strategic measure that can bring everyone together to focus on a common end goal. Executives who have stated their organizational outcomes and have shown improvement should be rewarded. In the private sector, it is perfectly acceptable and in fact motivational to reward employees that have achieved goals so why shouldn't it also be acceptable in the non-profit sector? Why do we feel we need to keep it quiet?
Something to think about!
Labels: executive bonuses, non-profit
"Three Cups of Tea"
During the cold months earlier this year, I had a chance to read a highly recommended book called, "Three Cups of Tea" written by David Oliver about an exceptional man called Greg Mortenson. What a book!! This story, highlighting miraculous changes, takes place mostly in the war areas of Pakistan and Afganistan.
Miracle one:
He was able to unite people from communities by focusing on one common goal - providing space and teachers to educate their children. Cultural groups, including members of the Taliban, overcame their differences in other areas because this dream of educating their children was far more important.
Miracle two:
On top of that, here was an American, a perceived enemy to some groups, finding the funding to help their children...unselfishly and involving even more Americans as the funders.
Miracle three:
I had heard that his schools had not been attacked by the Taliban and yet many schools are for girls only. Mr. Mortenson believes it is because the community feels it is their school, and the community will fight hard to defend it.
Note: the Taliban do not believe in educating girls and had closed down schools in southern Afganistan after they threw out the Russians. This year, in Pakistan, girls in other schools had acid thrown in their faces.
I highly recommend this book. It reminds me that we need to find what makes us , the human race, similar and build on that, not what makes us different. This book also reminds me that focusing on a few powerful, outcomes is ideal and it is the simplicity of the outcomes that makes everyone understand and be able to come together to make miracles a reality.
Something to think about...
Labels: outcomes, Three cups of tea
