By Steven M. Worth
The American Society for Public
Administration once conducted a survey to identify the common characteristics of managers in
public office who had longevity in their positions. Among other findings, the study found that
introverted personalities seem to be more successful in retaining their positions than their
extroverted counterparts. It is curious in the first place that introverts should be attracted into a role
that is associated normally with meeting and working with large numbers of people.
It also reveals a tendency, particularly
in associations, to stay within comfort margins by working with smaller groups of people and staying with
what is familiar rather than venturing into something new. But in the time associations are going
out of business, merging, or otherwise undergoing fundamental restructuring challenges,
could this tendency be leading to two different classes of associations?
One class might be defined by a club-like
familiarity of association members and staff participating in programs of long
standing. These associations are marked by the longevity of their executives and have learned to rely on
cash cow programs that may not be growing, but are profitable and predictable.
The other class is defined by environments
that are more entrepreneurial, growth oriented and marked by movement and change.
Now if the reader thinks that one class is
more likely to realize success than the other, they would probably be wrong. The first class
described above may sound boring, but boring can be good and profitable, not to mention less nerve
racking! Entrepreneurial environments certainly are exciting, but more entrepreneurial
start-ups fail than succeed and, as the ASPA survey found, chief staff executives who tend to run
such associations tend not to last long in their jobs! On the other hand, virtually all the biggest
success stories had entrepreneurial beginnings. In Darwinian terms, stressful and trying
times create the ideal environment for evolution; however, ancient species like crocodiles
and sharks have shown us by their survival from the dinosaur era that if you find your niche
in the evolutionary mainstream, there is very little need to adapt to change.
But what happens if you suspect your organization
might be in the current that is headed for the falls or for the morass of a stagnant
backwater? Is it possible to change direction? The answer is “yes,” but not without a leadership
change.
In his book Who says
Elephants Can’t Dance? Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. describes how he wrestled IBM into undertaking the changes it needed
to ensure its own survival. In this case, IBM’s long and distinguished history of success proved to
be its own worst enemy. Gerstner’s fresh perspective and rigorous top to bottom strategic
planning saved IBM from the fate of other once great companies like PanAm, Studebaker, and
other names that have faded into history.
There are other successful change models
for success, but whatever methodology used, common elements of successful organizational
change are:
1. board members and management recognize when change is needed;
2. the
board matches the organization’s needs to the personality and leadership characteristics
of a new CEO;
3. all stakeholders resist the temptation to establish “sacred
cows”—programs and policies that are off-limits to change; and
4. all stakeholders are willing to
identify themselves as a team and to make the sacrifices needed to identify and to achieve
essential goals.
For Norman Mailer in his classic
career-launching book, The Naked and the Dead, the conflict in the Pacific during the Second World War
stripped his soldier-characters of whatever social pretense or frivolity they may have had
before the war. If the war did not kill them outright, it pared them down to their essential souls.
Many associations are undergoing trials
not dissimilar to warfare. For some the future is to stay the course, and for others it is to
embrace change.
In which class is your association?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment