Involving Staff in System Selections

The steps in selecting a new AMS or other system aren't really that difficult.  Basically, you think through all the things you need and you compare those to the available systems.  But as with any process, there are things that can trip you up, and I'd like to look at one of those: how you involve other staff in the process. 

Dissatisfaction with an existing AMS can come from more than just the features of the system.  To avoid end-user dissatisfaction down the road, the more you involve staff upfront, the better.  Not only does it mean that you cover all your bases on the functionality list, but it fosters ownership of the system if people feel they have had a role to play in the selection.  One client engaged us to help them with an AMS selection, because the first time round, the IT staff made the final selection based on user input.  It didn't quite work and the organization is unhappy with the choice.  This time they are asking us to help them gather input from all staff in a structured and inclusive way. 

Lay the Groundwork.  As you embark on the selection process, set a tone of looking for input.  One way to do this is to send out emails about the upcoming project and let them know their input will be included.  Distribute a list of questions to get them thinking about pain points, goals, usage, and access.  Let them know the timeline and the time commitment from each person.

Gather the Information.  Conduct a formal requirements gathering process, where each department or group has the opportunity to provide input in a focused meeting.  Go deep into what they do, and how that work supports the organization.  Identify what bugs them the most and what they do the most, as well as what they'd like to be able to do.  Make sure you ask leadership too, they will have ideas that you're wise to incorporate.

Create Good Output.   When documenting the requirements, keep it clear and short.  It's good if your documents are actually provocative, and list the contentious issues upfront.  This gets staff to either nod their heads or push back, and that is useful information.  Even if in the end you don't go with everything they want, you can identify what was not included and why, and communicating that will help staff feel heard.

Get Hands On.  This is a hard one, but if possible have real people try out real tasks on a candidate system.  It's hard because most vendors have limited demonstration accounts, and prefer to keep their fingers on the mouse.  So a second option is to have them do specific tasks for you, and see how many clicks it takes.  Count them.  Have them do it slowly.  Does the mouse go where your eyes went or to strange new place (like an x to close the screen located bottom left instead of top right). 

Explain the Rationale.  Whatever system selection you make, whatever launch  timing you plan, whatever data conversion process you lay out, give the rationale for it.  It shows respect for their intelligence, effort and time. 

Provide Training.  It can be easy to think that training isn't needed because the system is so intuitive.  Or to give initial training but not have anything advanced.  Or not offer it after system launch.  Do it all.  Have something recorded for new staff to watch.  Offer advanced training, even if it's only every three months, or once a year.  You might find that few people use it, but those that do will save your organization significant money in the time they save themselves in doing ongoing tasks quickly.

Curiosity killed the Cat, but saved the ISTJ

As I watch our new cats get into all sorts of precarious positions, I am reminded that while traditionally dangerous for cats, curiosity is one of the best tools you can bring to the workplace.

Being curious is a key ingredient of the "7 Habits of Highly Effective People".  Stephen Covey recommends that we seek first to understand others, before we look to have them understand us.   This feeds their deep seated hunger to be heard and understood and gives us influence in our workplace.

In their book "Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most", the authors Stone, Patton, Heen and Fisher use curiosity as a major tool for dealing with confrontation.  By encouraging us to wonder why the other person said what they did and consider what history and influences generated their perspective, their model puts us in a curious mode which generates greater understanding and less animosity, while still allowing for truths and resolutions to emerge. 

Being curious makes many difficult situations manageable.  In a large staff meeting, where a new unpalatable direction is being announced, many of us hesitate to state our opinion baldly.  And we recognize that there may be information we don't have.  Asking an intelligent question can raise new aspects without making the speaker feel threatened. 

If you are on the other end and you are the speaker who does get a zinger during a high-stakes presentation, being truly curious can be a life saver.  It allows you to wonder where this comes from and what might motivate it.  Asking additional questions or phrasing your response in a way that considers this different point of view as an interesting possibility reduces your automatic defensiveness and gives you great credibility as the speaker. 

Cultivating curiosity in specific ways can augment our typical or preferred ways of interacting with our work environment.  Using the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory styles, we can see our own strengths and weaknesses in relation to curiosity:

Introverts tend to work through problems privately; their curiosity is likely to be more of an intellectual sort where they will work independently to gather the relevant information.  Recognizing this and allowing time to gather input from other people will be a useful tool.

In contrast, Extraverts tend to think out loud and thus are curious about and  welcome the input of others in thinking through a solution.  However, they may spend less time reflecting and thus miss some of the nuances, or be swayed by the opinions in the room rather than assessing the full complement of information.

Sensing types are those who enjoy working with the details.  On the one hand, they can get very interested in those details and are curious to gather them all in.  On the other hand, they can get overwhelmed if there are too many, and so they may like to limit what they work with thus limiting the scope of their work. 

Intuitive types see problems as part of a larger system, and are more likely to want to make sure they have considered all linked aspects of the system.  However, by considering only the big picture they may miss some of the details that the Sensing types revel in.

Thinking-oriented people want to get the work done, and are curious about the data needed to do it.  They will spend time digging up the information they need to do a good job.  However, sometimes they think they have enough data already and want to move forward without regard to others opinions.

Feeling-oriented people seek harmony and will actively incorporate other opinions and be curious about all the team members' input.  They may need help moving on and just getting the job done, even if some people are not happy.

Judging types are those that like to investigate options, but once fully explored and a decision made, they really don't like opening it up again.  They don't want to ask the question that might mean revisiting work already done and so may not be curious about opinions or facts that could open that door.

Perceiving types are more open-ended people, always curious about new ideas, in a way that is frustrating to J's.  The balance is often to keep open to identifying new ideas and options, but quickly classifying them as critical or simply interesting, and then only incorporating those that are fundamental to the project right now.

Rules vs. Boundaries

One of my friends is very strict with her children and she does a great job.  She has very specific rules about what needs to be done and when, and her children are well behaved as a result .  However, my friend in enforcing her rules sometimes crosses boundaries.  I see her son react angrily when she lays down a rule and doesn't tolerate any deviation.  She sets the rules, and by her rules, she has total control over what he does and when.  Since he's nine, her authority crosses his boundary of growing autonomy.

In my house, I sometimes feel like a slacker parent because we have less rules.  Yet things run smoothly and work is (mostly) shared and we negotiate what needs to be done as it comes up. 

It occurred to me that in my house we use boundaries more than rules. 

Boundaries regulate daily routine as much as rules.  We are polite in our dealings with each other, though it's also OK to get angry and express anger.  If we do overreact and cross a line, we apologize later.  We do all (mostly) help to clear the table, bring in groceries, take out trash, clean the house, because that's how people need to work to live together.

Some boundaries become so clear and articulated that they are rules e.g. you knock before opening a closed bedroom door.  Other rules are just set as rules by parents e.g. you have to eat dinner to get dessert.  I am the parent, so I do have the authority to send my kid to his room if he keeps crossing the line.

Rules imply authority.  Boundaries imply autonomy.

I see this in organizations too.  Rules, in the form of policies and procedures, are needed to help everyone understand what needs to be done.  But an overburden of rules takes away from autonomy.  And keeping within the myriad of rules reduces the role of personal judgment of what is appropriate, and thus boundaries are regularly crossed. 

One association had built up a bureaucracy of rules, because the leader couldn't tolerate even one infraction.  That lack of trust generated a lack of boundaries.  All behavior was dictated from above, and if it wasn't outside the rules, it was fine.  So boundaries of civility and of recognizing different roles and their ownership of different tasks were constantly crossed. 

Other groups, particularly teams, agree joint rules such as how often they will meet, how disagreements will be handled.  These ground rules come from the joint authority of the group, and express the agreed boundaries as well as what is not a boundary crossing e.g. disagreeing with an idea. 

In any institution, be it a family or an association, a balance of rules and boundaries provides both structure and freedom.  Hard to achieve, but worthwhile considering.

Being Full of Oneself

When we hear someone described as being full of him or herself, we envisage someone who consistently delivers and defends their own viewpoint above those of others.   We see that as an enduring character trait, rooted in their own self-image and confidence in themselves.

But I suddenly realized that being 'full of oneself' is something we all have to deal with.  In fact, it's so universal that it can be hard to recognize.

Whenever we spend the day examining, judging, desiring, rejecting, and commenting, we are full of our own sense of ourselves, our own view of the world.  We are looking at the world through a filter of our thoughts and judgments, but we don't really realize it.

The reason I found this phrase so useful, was that I imagined what it might be like to not be full of myself.  And I had this sense of all of my thoughts and desires and judgments, and everything I use to make sense of and manage life around me, just draining away, leaking out of my feet and dripping from my fingertips.  And I felt wonderfully peaceful.  What was left was an emptiness that was curious, interested in what actually was around me right then.  My body began to breathe more deeply, my eyes saw the sunlight and my ears heard the sounds in the room.  And for a few precious moments, I was fully present and felt just the pure joy of being alive.

Our egos, our sense of ourselves, are part of our arsenal of tools to keep us alive.  They are how we survive as humans.  But they are just that, tools, which can be put down.  And in that space pure consciousness is allowed to arise. 

In a more practical way, this is very useful in a work meeting.  When someone directly questions your opinion or work on a particular element, the first reaction is often to explain, defend, and point out why this is the best way.  Or for some of us, it is to cave, to agree, to give in.  But when the zinger comes in, there is a third option - to lower your defenses, to let the ego drain away and allow the zinger to pierce and then move on through you.  By simply observing the zinger without judgment or opinion, you don't take it personally. 

And then you can take their point and use it to start a new discussion.  Ask them to elaborate further - What does the person see as the main issue?  What might be better alternatives?  What would a better finished product look like?  This will allow discussion to arise, rather than argument, and the team will work better as a result, because no one person will be too full of themselves.  

Confusing the Goal with the Metric

Setting goals has become quite a science, particularly at performance evaluation time.  We set SMART goals, making sure they are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely.  But we don’t always continue to ask if they are relevant.

Continuing to question our goals is part of being a learning organization.  Chris Argyris was one of the pioneer thinkers about learning organizations, and he described single loop and double loop learning.  Single loop learning is typified by our reaction when we fail to meet a goal - we get a bit defensive, look for people to blame or problems to fix, and put in place a new plan to achieve the goal.  We push ahead because we want to succeed and meeting our quarterly or annual goals feels good.  But it narrows our thinking.  Double loop learning occurs when we also evaluate the goal.  When we fail to meet the goal we take an honest and hard look at what it is we're trying to achieve and learn from that examination.  We may change not only the goal but our own behavior in trying to achieve it, because we also learn about our own impact.
   
Humans evolve towards the line of inquiry.  If we focus on just one thing, then all our effort will be on that one thing.  If that goal is just a metric (revenue, new members, tweets) then we may lose sight of other important aspects (quality, relevance, renewals).   

The ultimate goal should be  vision of the future.  One that changes over time if needed.  And one that has metrics which evaluate how close we're getting.  So the goal of an energized membership may have several metrics such as number of active volunteers, member satisfaction, revenue from programs.  But they just point to the ultimate goal, that of a membership which values and sustains the organization. 

Take losing weight as an example with which I'm very familiar.  Plenty of studies show that people who lose weight often regain it.  Because once they achieved this wonderful body, they found they were still the same unhappy people inside.  Instead of a goal to lose 30 lbs, how about a goal to accept our bodies instead of hating them.  To have a vision of being comfortable in our bodies, and using not just diets and exercise but maybe meditation, some interesting hobbies, and some cute new clothes too.   

Here's the thing - if we focus on the metric, then that may be all that we achieve.

Organizational Champions

Associations often pull teams of people together to develop new products and services for members.  However, a great idea with all the right people on the team will still fail if the person who is the organizational champion for the product is not the right person. 

Typically there is one person who is passionate about the product (if there isn't then you probably need to re-evaluate the problem you are trying to solve). But there are several common failures when that person isn't in the right position in the organization. 

The Pushy Boss. This person is too high in the organization to really get sufficiently into the details to make sure this idea can work. He won't have the time on his calendar to go through a thoughtful process of problem identification and solution evaluation. Often he ends up pushing the idea forward based on a preconceived concept of it, which is not flexible enough to succeed. 

The Creative Soul. This is someone who is not in the direct chain of command for the area where the product will eventually live. She might be in an innovative think tank or a side area such as communications or IT. She knows this idea can work, but he has no power herself to make it a reality. Because she doesn't have the control over the resources, she lacks a fundamental sense of ownership and of the real cost of the effort. The combination of her vision and powerlessness can bring a project down. 

The Tenacious Terrier. This is a person who is close to the front-line and knows, just knows, what the member needs. And because Tenacious Terriers are often bright, energetic, and persuasive, you go along with it. But he doesn't have the organizational understanding to really figure out how this might fit in. Unless that person is a program manager or director, and has an existing base of resources to expand to accommodate this program, it's going to be difficult to establish. 

Who has The Right Stuff? The person who is going to own the project, run it, staff it, and budget for it is the person who is the most effective organizational champion. This person does need the support of higher level bosses plus the resources of the IT, publications, communications, marketing, finance and other folk who will make it happen. 

But the bottom line is that he or she needs to own the vision and have the personal commitment to making it a reality, to be an effective champion for a new product.

Usefulness

We are all trying to make our associations, our content, and our services useful to our members.  That's how we achieve relevance - by clearly identifying who our members are and then being useful to them.

Our webinar yesterday on Harnessing Technology was about finding ways to be useful through providing innovative technology-based member services.  We looked at some examples of associations who have pioneered this work, and considered why those services were attractive to members.  Then we used them as a starting point for creating some of our own ideas.  Once we had developed some ideas, we considered how to pin them down, evaluate them and get them moving forward.   

If you are interested in moving your use of technology to the next level, and you missed the webinar, you can access the free recording on our website, www.EllipsisPartners.com . 

And feel free to contact me at medwards@ellipsispartners.com.   I would love to join you in thinking through how to use technology in strategic ways and bind your members to your association.