Innovation Requires Diversity

There are no coffee refills in France.

For Americans visiting for the first-time this might seem like caffeine heresy:  What?  No carafe of stale coffee dropped off at my table?

No.  Instead of on-demand consumption, they offer on-demand creation, bringing you a fresh cup of coffee when you are ready for it.  The quality of the product is paramount to them.  What seems wrong to some seems only proper to the French.

And it begins to make you think differently about coffee, about customer service, about product quality, about timing, and more.  Or it does if you're someone like me.

Thinking differently.  It's one of the many core elements of innovation, one Franz Johansson nicely described in his book The Medici Effect.  He suggests innovation results from stepping into The Intersection, a place were ideas from different fields and cultures meet and collide, ultimately igniting an explosion of extraordinary discoveries.  In this TedTalk drawn from his new book, Where Ideas Come From, Steven Johnson echoes Johansson, stressing that many innovation results from combining seemingly disparate ideas or taking an idea or concept from one industry and applying it to the product or service of another.


But you can't think differently if you're not exposed to difference.  So here are a few simple ways to jumpstart fresh thinking and fresh perspectives.

Consume different media.
This is perhaps the easiest personal practice.  Simply scan publications, television program, blogs, and Web sites that address topics and feature perspectives that differ from your own.  Your field trips can be intentional and focused (I'm going to spend an hour today immersing myself in media women consume) or random using web site generators like StumbleUpon, following the top 20 or so search results for a broad category like "quality," scanning Tweets for of interest, or grabbing ten magazines off the rack at your local newsstand or bookstore.

Connect with different people.
It's great to develop a network of peers from your profession or industry.  Doing so may cause you to accidentally bump into some fresh thinking because each of your colleagues brings his/her individuality into your relationship.  But you also want to hang regularly with a group of folks who don't do the work you do, ones whose livelihood depends on a different set of skills or values.  Talking about your ideas or concerns with them automatically elicits a different response because they don't look at your situation with the same mental models or lenses that you do.

Expose yourself to contrary opinions.
Over time our belief systems can harden into rigid walls powerful enough to reject any alternative viewpoint that tries to get past them.  That's a problem.  Author Meg Wheatley writes about the importance of allowing our belief systems to be disturbed.

"We won't necessarily have to let go of everything we believe and know, but we do have to be willing to let them go. We have to be interested in making our beliefs and opinions visible so that we can consciously choose them or discard them."

 We need to intentionally cultivate out ability to listen and attempt to understand the very viewpoints we find irrational, radical, ridiculous, or untenable.  In doing so, we'll make our mental models more permeable and open to the fact that what is true for us, often is not true for others.

Collect interesting questions.
The answers we get depend on the questions we ask.  In his book The Design of Business, author Roger Martin suggests that innovative thinking often occurs because someone approaches the same problem but with a different initial premise.  A more diverse group of individuals is likely to ask a more diverse set of questions, resulting in a more comprehensive exploration and understanding of a situation.  As you interact with others, pay attention to the questions they pose, particularly ones you would be unlikely to ask.  Collect those questions and file them away for future use.

We can't think differently if we're not exposed to difference.  Such an obvious statement, but still one filled with great potential for individuals and groups.  How are you cultivating your own exposure to differences and what strategies (beyond hiring) might organizations want to consider?

Toward Less Painful Panels

I attended a panel discussion last week that could have been a much more powerful learning experience.  Interesting panelists were somewhat shackled by an inadequate session design and limiting room set.  Panels are always tricky, but they are a staple of industry conferences, so it is high time we made them more compelling. 

Marketing for most panel discussions highlights the topic,  maybe the questions that will be explored, and the panelists who will be speaking.  The actual programs usually begin with logistics announcements, promotional info, and introductions of each panelists (at the program I recently attended this ate up 20% of the session time block:  unacceptable).

A moderator then poses a question and most frequently, each panelist responds.  Better moderators help connect individual responses and/or offer some thoughtful follow-up questions or comments.  This is repeated numerous times for the bulk of the program and then the floor is opened for Q&A.  Generally only a handful of people in the room get to pose a question.  In this framework, I feel lucky as a participant if I get 2-3 insights to take away when much more is possible in a 90-minute session.  Plus the format is repetitive and flat, leaving audience members sitting passively for far too long and then only giving a few individuals a chance at engaging with questions.

As a learner I want to hear most insightful and provocative comments from a diverse (that's a key word) mix of panelists and experience a lively conversation among audience members and the panelists.  Ideally it feels free-flowing instead of the slow staccato rhythm many panels engender.

There is definitely much that can be improved in moderator and panelists prep.  While Guy Kawasaki and others have offered great tips on being a better panelist, we really need to rethink the conditions in which panelists and audience members are placed.  Otherwise we are just making the best of a less than ideal situation. 

We must better equip the audience to engage and interact. 

Get likely attendees in the conversation early by having panelists share some of their ideas/content  (1) in the marketing materials, and (2) in a panel preview.  By including a key insight or assertion from each panelist in the marketing material, you can arouse more interest (and probably attendance) than just the usual listing of  names and titles.  It promotes a flavor of the conversation that might unfold instead of just the credentials of those conversing.

A panel preview should then be shared fairly close to the panel date, offering each panelist an expanded—though still concise—platform to share more views.  The preview could be a short YouTube video, a slide program with synched audio, or a PDF file with brief written commentary.  The goal is to seed the conversation in advance so that it can begin immediately when the program starts.

Participants should Tweet or submit questions and reactions based on this advance sharing of content.  The panel I attended said no one did so for their discussion, but I cannot find anywhere that we were invited to contribute ... not in the marketing and not in my confirmation, two places where that invitation should be prominently displayed.  Questions and comments could again be collected on-site using social media or being written on index cards.  Heck, let's have people write them on sheets of paper, crumple them up, and then throw them at panelists to get the energy level higher in the room.  Whatever it takes.  Let's get as many voices into the conversation even if they are "voiced" b y the moderator on behalf of the participants.


We have to design the format and the room for conversation not exposition.

Panel room sets are as predictable and outdated as wood paneling in your basement.  Both need to be replaced and refreshed.  Straight-line seating on risers immediately leads to personal pontification delivered from one to the masses.  And when you are a panelists on a stage, it's difficult to connect with people seated parallel to you, individuals you can't even look at directly.

• Let's try setting a room fishbowl with the panelists in a center circle, facing each other in a conversational boxing ring.  Include extra chairs among the panelists that audience members can claim to briefly join the conversation.   
• How about a fashion show set with panelists roaming the runway sharing their viewpoints with each other and the participants?
• Maybe mimic the House of Commons environment and have panelists take center stage on all four sides, facing each other and surrounded by audience members. 
• Or let them really get on their soapbox and stand on soapboxes stationed among the audience members and recalling the town criers of yore. 
• If you must use a traditional room set, at least launch the program with each panelist using  Pecha Kucha or an Ignite format to introduce all of their thinking ideas in 6 minutes or less and then open the floor for facilitated conversation.

When I attend a panel, I come to learn from the experts, not just listen to them.  It's time we design for an engaging conversation, one that our current mindset and room set rarely allow.

P.S.  About panelist intros.  I don't want to listen to them voice basic biographical info that I could be given in writing or that could be displayed on the screen.  Let them share something personal, something that allows us to connect to them as people instead of their resumes.

Yoda Had it Wrong

Can someone point me to the day when “trial and error” morphed into “do perfectly or fail”?  I know Yoda is the all-powerful —“Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.”— but I did not know that this declaration in a fictional movie had become management orthodoxy.

I’m currently serving on the ASAE Innovation Task Force. As a result, creativity, innovation, and invention are an even greater part of my reading efforts and conversations than usual.  And what I am discovering from listening to others is that people deeply believe one of the reasons we are not more innovative in associations is that we fear failure, particularly our volunteer leaders.

At face value this makes some sense.  Associations are process-oriented organizations, and striving for consensus can (but doesn’t have to) lead to a result that excites few, but offends no one.  Volunteer leaders are temporary stewards of a project (committee chair) or the organization (board member) and don’t want to be the ones who really screwed things up on their watch, so they may tend to be more conservative in their decision-making.

But I don’t recall a meeting where we made a decision that we would try something, but only a 100% perfect outcome would be considered success.  “The motion to endorse the new annual meeting format passes with the understanding that if even one member raises one concern, the event will be a failure and we will revert immediately to what we were doing before, apologize profusely to the membership, and never make such a decision again.”

You neither?

Yet somehow it seems there is an undercurrent (who knows how pervasive) that falling short = failure.  Not perfect = failure.  Mistakes = failure. Not going as planned = failure. 

And we have to immediately stop that because such a belief immediately stops us … from experimenting.  And if we can’t “try a lot of stuff to see what works” as advised by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in Built to Last, our future progress is indeed limited.  Innovation is typically not a pass-fail course.  A lot of possible grades come between A+ and an F.

And even when a product is released widely, it can still be done in varying tiers of completeness/functionality as evidenced by Google and its rollout of the Chrome browser.  Here's how Business Week described it in January of this year:

"Chrome has three levels of participation once a product is deemed ready to be released beyond the company’s own engineering base: Dev; Beta and Stable. 'Dev' is open to the developer community at large, allowing feedback and commentary from a sophisticated user group. The Beta channel has what Chrome’s Director of Product Management, Brian Rakowski, describes as 'reasonable stability' while the Stable channel, the one that just got upgraded, is intended for 'the majority of people who just want it to work.' According to Rakowski, this maps out at roughly 1%: 10%: 89% ratio of users."

Yoda had it wrong.  When it comes to innovation there is only try.  Try often.  Listen.  Revise.  Try again.  As Collins notes in Good to Great: "Greatness is not a function of circumstance.  Greatness is largely a matter of conscious choice and discipline."

We need to choose to be great and to then engage in the disciplined experimentation that moves us toward that destination, incrementally and exponentially.  To believe we must do something and have it go exactly as planned is to ensure little in the way of innovation will be done.  And that is an error for which we will be found guilty at trial.

Facilitation: What would make the environment more inviting?

The design of a publication or website shapes the way you read it.  A building or park layout influences how we move about the space.  This New York Times essay shows how a school lunch line redesign could influence healthier dining choices being made. The environment in which a meeting or workshop occurs influences how individuals engage with each other and the meeting or learning experience.

While planning decisions related to the environment rightly focus on logistics (chairs, tables, temperature, food, etc.) those logistics must support a deeper purpose.  We should begin by answering: What would make a meeting or workshop environment more inviting … to the participants attending and for the work of the gathering?  In other words, what environment is likely to support the desired outcomes for the session and be conducive to participant interaction?  Answering this question requires two key pieces of information: (1) what the session must accomplish, and (2) the meeting norms and expectations of those attending.

A session designed to produce a significant number of creative ideas is very different than one meant to reach a decision on a critical and controversial decision.  A workshop intended to build community and collaborative skills is not the same as one introducing content required for a certification exam.  The location and room set are the obvious environmental considerations, but they are really just the beginning.

Think about: posters or other visuals on the walls; music during arrivals, breaks and departures; materials on the tables that can engage people physically or introduce a sense of purpose or play; the printed support materials that the meeting will use; flipcharts and slides; the external environment participants will need to navigate prior to arriving at the meeting; the food and beverage and how they support the energy and attention the meeting's work requires and participants' tastes and preferences related to diet and wellness.  Years ago when I served on a volunteer board, the meeting planner always had each person's favorite beverage available throughout the day.  If you're a Tab or Fresca fanatic that is an unexpected delight.

We are all somewhat creatures of habit and bring our expectations into a meeting environment based on our past experiences and organizational routines.  If you've used to a room with a conference table and leather chairs, a hollow square or a circle of chairs will definitely be different.   At a Strategic Leadership Forum years ago, ASAE created a general session room with (1) no front and (2) a mix of seating options including oversized sofas and chairs, small cocktail rounds, typical meeting chairs, and more.  Some people walked into the seemingly random room layout and were delighted.  Others not so much.  One group of individuals made a row of chairs facing what they presumed would be the front, recreating what was familiar and comfortable for them.  You don't have to cater specifically to participants' expectations, but if you are going to be introducing a different environment, you need to prepare for the fact they may not find it inviting or may require some support to find their way.

Remember, too, that core demographics including gender, age, race or ethnicity also affect participants' perceptions. An inviting environment is one in which individuals can see themselves being comfortable.  If they are geeked out on technology, they'll feel comfortable in meetings that support them staying connected and that model great use of the latest technologies.  Examples and metaphors used in conversation must be inclusive so that everyone attending understands the meaning and reference.  Business casual can mean very different things to individuals.  Time of day and the way time is managed also reflect different cultural norms.

The environment sends immediate messages about the purpose of the session and how participants are meant to engage with the space and each other.  Organization development specialist Kurt Lewin once said that behavior is a function of people interacting with their environment.  If you want your meeting environment to be inviting and to get an RSVP from your participants, design it with (1) great intention for the purpose and the participants and (2) with great attention to the details that will support both.

Note:  Facilitation Friday is a periodic feature offering an in-depth exploration of a core issue related to designing great meetings and conferences (with an emphasis on meetings).  This is the fifth in the series.  Previous posts can be found here:

Meeting and Workshop Management: 15 Timeless Questions
What would make the conversation more compelling?
What would make the community more connected?
What would make the intention more worthy of investment?
What would make the process/pace more productive?

Six Speaker Preparation Fundamentals

Whether you are a presenter preparing for a conference or a meeting planner working with speakers, here are seven things speakers need to know to design a more powerful learning experience.  While more is definitely desirable, these six areas represent the foundation of what a speaker needs in order to be successful.

The desired outcomes
Not just for the end of the presentation, but for when people have left the conference and are trying to apply the new information in their personal and professional efforts.  What is it that they should be capable of doing?  How should they be feeling about their efforts? What concepts or insights should most be shaping their choices?

The industry/profession/organization context
Different times require different information.  Speakers, particularly those coming from outside the industry or profession, need to understand the current context in which the audience members operate: economically, socially, organizationally, etc.  What are their most pressing issues?  What information is unlikely to be well-received or unhelpful?  What relevant info related to the sponsoring organization needs to be understood? An executive summary document (1-2 pages) of the industry/profession landscape, the players within it, and the key terms and facts is always valuable.

The conference context
A session does not happen in a vacuum.  It usually is part of a conference program or a menu of professional development options individuals can select from as they desire.  Where does an individual presentation fall in the program?  What content might others be addressing before a session, information that a speaker may want to connect to or mention.  What time of day is the program being held and how will that affect individuals' energy and attention.

The learning expectations
How do the audience members generally prefer to learn?  Do they tend to be more left-brain analytical learners or more right-brain conceptual learners?  What learning formats have they most enjoyed in the past?  What teaching techniques are they most accustomed to experiencing?  What types of visual information (handouts, slides, flipcharts) are participants used to experiencing?  What are other learning norms/preferences a speaker should consider honoring?

The likely attendee profile
What is known about the likely attendees for a session?  Speakers can craft better content when we know basic demographics (age, gender, race or ethnicity) experience and knowledge levels, participant job functions and titles, types and sizes of organizations participants represent.  If participants are registering for a specific session can their interests/needs be captured on the registration form, in a short electronic survey, or solicited via social media? Will anyone have special needs (visual, auditory, or mobility)?

The logistics
What is the physical environment for the session?  Speakers need to know all the specifics about a room set:  basic configuration; number of tables and chairs; placement of LCD screen and computer cable connection; whether or not there will be a podium, headtable, or riser; microphone options; and other activities that will occur during the session (logistics announcements, awards, etc.).  Is there a Twitter backchannel for the conference and/or individual sessions? What are the key advance deadlines?  Will particpiants be accessing presentations/additional materials in advance and if so, how?  Reconfirm session date, time, room location, desired arrival time, who to connect with upon arrival, who to call on-site if needs arise, how evaluations will be handled.

Facilitation: What would make the process/pace more productive?

"The amount of output per unit of input."  That's one common definition of productivity.  But for meetings the sheer amount of output may be a useful, but insufficient definition of success.  If you produces pages and pages of flipcharted ideas, but most of them are unusable, that probably wouldn't be considered a success.  So here are a few common sense facilitation tips for increasing both the quantity and the quality of the input (people's insights and opinions) and outputs (ideas generated and decisions reached) in a typical meting.

Honor individual learning/contribution styles
More introverted participants appreciate time to reflect and perhaps write out/down their ideas.  more extroverted participants feed off the energy of others sharing ideas verbally.  Consider using a tandem approach periodically with individuals first noting their ideas on their own and then sharing them with the large group either verbally or posting their written ideas and then discussing them verbally.  This strategy also works well in workshops.

Use the value of visuals
Keeping an ongoing visual record of the discussions provides a common point of reference and also can help neutralize the tendency of some individuals to get repetitive in stating their points.  General rule: you can't facilitate and flipchart simultaneously, so get others to cpature the conversation.  Keep at least two sets of color-coded notes: (1) running comments and ideas, and (2) core themes, summaries, decisions.  If your meeting is a conference call, consider having an online component where notes taken on a computer can be shared.

Remain vigilant about drawing in diverse input
It's easy to get overly focused on facilitating those sharing of their own initiative and to not notice the number of people who may be processing thoughts on their own and not offering them to the group.  Expand your toolkit of phrases to broaden the contributions:

• How do others feel about this issue?  
• I'd love to hear from some folks we haven't heard from yet.  
• This is a critical issue so let's go around the room and hear from everyone.  Feel free to pass or say "ditto ___" if someone already has expressed our viewpoint.  
• We've heard several people echo the same viewpoints, I'm wondering if any others in the room have a different take.

Knit the threads of conversation into a coherent whole.
This is particularly critical if a highly verbal group is involved and/or energy or passions are high.  At any given moment individuals are more focused on their next comment rather than listening to what is being said.  This requires facilitation that regularly restates, distills, and summarizes the many contributions of individuals, weaving them together into a more cohesive record of what is happening.  At a conference a host or emcee can perform this function, connecting key takeaways from breakout sessions and other events when the entire community convenes in general sessions.

Clarify intentions, agendas, and contributions.
Lots of people show up to meetings physically without being fully engaged mentally, so starting off with a quick review of what success looks like for your meeting is usually helpful.  I often follow this, particularly with groups who don't work together regularly, by asking individuals to share; (1) the role/perspective they can offer, (2) the needs and/or agenda they bring, and (3) how they are likely to contribute or participate.  By making all of this information public (think Johari's Window) it allows for the group to then discuss the implications of what they now know in relation to the purpose of the meeting.


Allow productive detours, but avoid dead ends and derailments.
Overly restrictive facilitation impedes potentially creative detours that can stimulate fresh thinking.  but allowing participants to stray too far into unnecessary details or extraneous issues obviously uses valuable time.  If a seemingly interesting side issue is raised get the group's permission to address it with this type of statement: "There seems to be some good energy around this idea even though it is a bit off-topic.  Would you like to take #____ minutes and explore it a bit more?"  The time limit and permission allow you to then pull the group back to the main agenda more easily.  And when you need to refocus a group try saying, "I'm wondering if this is something we need to discuss or decide right now."

Note:  Facilitation Friday is a periodic feature offering an in-depth exploration of a core issue related to designing great meetings and conferences (with an emphasis on meetings).  This is the fourth in the series.  Previous posts can be found here:

Meeting and Workshop Management: 15 Timeless Questions
What would make the conversation more compelling?
What would make the community more connected?
What would make the intention more worthy of investment?

Intolerable Meeting Mistakes Still Being Made

I'm a pretty patient guy, but I have finally reached my breaking point after experiencing all of the following basic meeting planner blunders at one or more conferences during the past 10 months:

• Name badges you can't read unless you bury your head in the participant's breasts.
• The "sugar-only" afternoon break buffet of cookies the size of your head.
• General session speakers who are nothing but general because either they weren't prepped with enough specifics about the audience or they didn't care/weren't capable of being specific for the audience.
• "Smiley-face" evaluations only asking whether or not I liked a speaker, event, or conference.
• Banning handouts that could help facilitate learning under the guise of going green, but then serving bottled water and having enough printed promotional crap laying around the registration area to grow a forest. 
• The all-carb continental breakfast because it's always best to start the day drowsy.
• Kicking off the first conference general session with 15 minutes or more of mind-numbing logistics announcements from a parade of increasingly uninteresting talking heads.
• Sessions trying to save on AV costs using LCD projectors with barely enough lumens to do shadow puppets in the comfort of your home living room.
• Mandatory workshop slide templates using garish clip art or graphics that consume more than 20% of a slide but add absolutely no educational value to the visual.
• An apparent inability to find anyone other than older white males to make keynote presentations.
• Room sets meant for certification exams being the only available option for highly interactive sessions.
• Session descriptions limited to 100 words being the only available info to help you select your learning options even though the only program is an online version that technically could have unlimited length.
• Bland, catalog-look stock photos being used for marketing instead of actual members of the community.

I have to stop here because my blood is beginning to boil.  How can it be that in the year 2010 so many basic blunders remain so prevalent, ones often perpetrated by individuals with one or more of the alphabet-soup certification designations following their name?  What's even more obscene is that these fundamental faux pas are prevalent enough that meeting attendees just shrug their shoulders as if to say "what can we do?"

So I ask you, what can we do?

Facilitation Friday: What would make the intention more worthy of investment?

It's one thing to show up to a meeting.  It's another thing to SHOW UP, being prepared to fully engage cognitively and emotionally and to fully deploy your strengths in service of the group and the meeting's intention.  I believe four factors help support the latter, the greater level of investment that says "I'm all in, and I invite others to join me."

1.  A clear intention is infused through every element of the meeting design. 

Too often our intentions are fuzzy, ambiguous, or worse yet, undefined.  Without clear intentions for a meeting or a conference, we design by default, missing the opportunity to align actions with intentions and achieve superior results.  Once intentions have been clearly defined (generate 3 new ideas, facilitate hands-on peer-peer learning, reach a decision on XYZ topic) every element of the meeting should be examined to determine how it can be designed to support the intended outcome.  Once a final design is drafted it should again be compared against the stated intentions.  Any lack of alignment should be identified and corrected.

2.  All parties attending complete the appropriate advance work.

Yeah, I know.  How can we make sure this happens?  I wish I knew, but what I do know is that having a conference call or an in-person gathering consisting of some who did their homework and others didn't is rarely productive.  When I'm leading an event where it is clear people have shown up not fully prepared to contribute to the stated intentions, I often (1) ask them to sit and observe the conversations of those who did prepare until they feel sufficiently up to speed to contribute, (2) do a quick timeout for people to read and review when a significant majority have not done so in advance, (3) cancel the event if it can be easily rescheduled without too much cost/harm, or (4) simply state the realities of the situation and engage the group in determining how to proceed. All four choices always include some discussion about our collective responsibility to come prepared and identification of any future steps that could be taken to ensure this happens.  And obviously tone is important in considering any of these options: it's about establishing and reinforcing accountability without unnecessary marginalization of individuals, a fine line to be sure.

3.  All individuals feel responsible for both the process and the outcome, even if a designated individual is the facilitator or the speaker.

No one person in the front of the room or at the controls of a conference call can ever know exactly what needs to be done at every single moment to accelerate the conversation, the learning, the decision-making.  Yet too often, participants—be they in a workshop or a staff meeting—divorce themselves of responsibility for helping move a conversation along, resorting to complaining after the event about what they would have been done differently if they were in charge.  Guess what?  You are in charge … of your own learning, of our own frustrations, of your own satisfaction, and of your own commitment to following through on the options available to you as a co-owner of how well a gathering works.

4.  A wrap-up and review produces meaningful action and gathers appropriate feedback.

Too many meetings close on a whimper instead of a bang, often because of poor design and clock management.  We need to design in a manner that makes the gathering worthy of every minute and every second of an individual's investment, not just some lesser percentage of the overall time allotted.  Any gathering should include a set percentage of time (for me, it's usually 5-10%) to compare outcomes against intentions, to review assignments and timelines, and to assess what worked well and should be continued and what meeting elements could be refined for better results in the future.  Despite being fairly obvious, I'd say about half of the events in which I participate don't do these things.

Note:  Facilitation Friday is a periodic feature offering an in-depth exploration of a core issue related to designing great meetings and conferences (with an emphasis on meetings).  This is the fourth in the series.  Previous posts can be found here:

15 Timeless Questions for Meeting Management
What would make the conversation more compelling?
What would make the community more connected?

Metabolizing Motivation and Progress: We Wait Too Long

By the time you're ready to give them a plaque, the volunteers are burnt out.

By the time employees qualify for a sabbatical, their creative juices have run dry.

By the time enough money is available for a perfect product, the market has moved on to new interests.

We know that eating several small meals a day keeps our body's metabolism running more efficiently, yet we still skip breakfast, grab a bite for lunch on the run, and then gorge ourselves at dinner, only to lapse into a post-meal coma ... I mean, nap.

Our organizational choices are often just as shortsighted, saving up for the big day instead of making incremental contributions to what we know matters most.  So let's try …

• thanking volunteers every week
• offering annual sabbaticals to all staff, one day for each year of service
• providing mini-grants quarterly or semi-annually

Small contributions now.
Immediate value gained.
Rewards compounded over time.

What other micro-investments might be worth pursuing in lieu of saving up for one big day, a day that may never come or be too late?

Talent Demonstrated Not Time Served

When it comes to staff hires or promotions and volunteer elections and appointments, it's long overdue that we shift emphasis from time served to talent demonstrated.

Marking time alone is not qualification. It's what was contributed and accomplished in the time served that matters more.  Yet, too often the mere fact that one has been present for a number of years is seen as necessary and sufficient for hiring, appointment, or advancement.  Organizing around talent means:

• Creating job descriptions that specify the talents and qualities successful candidates will possess.
• Asking application and interview questions that focus more on accomplishments realized and talents demonstrated.
• Matching talents and skills to position requirements rather than automatic succession to the next job in a hierarchy.
• Evaluating and cultivating strengths demonstrated and looking for ways to help people manage around their shortcomings (Gallup's strengths-based framework)

There's an old Broadway song that says "time heals everything."  While that may be true for broken hearts and grief, it offers little solace when it comes to cultivating human resources.