cellio | organizational behavior 101

Entry tags:

synagogue leadership

organizational behavior 101

cahwyguy wrote an interesting entry on some basic mistakes the leaders of his congregation are making. While he's talking specifically about a congregation, the principles apply to any voluntary association. And, sadly, the mistakes they're making are not new; I would have thought more people understood how to make organizations run well. "The current leaders (and the ones continuing into next year) like to talk about the strengths of a small congregation, and this one in particular. They like to emphasize the warmth and friendliness of its people, and how they value the contributions of everyone. It's a facade. [...] What they are forgetting is that volunteers need respect, and people remember how they are treated."

Failing to take care of your volunteers -- to thank them, to give them the resources they need, and to keep tabs on them to avert burn-out -- is fundamental. When you start taking people for granted, you send the "you owe us" message -- or worse yet, the "you don't really matter as a person" message. And that's when people start asking themselves if they really need this grief. Maybe it's time to drop back and let someone else organize the events, or do the scut-work, or reach out to new members, or whatever. And then you get into this downward spiral and it's very hard to recover.

I'm fortunate that my congregation doesn't have these issues. Some of that's luck, some of it's clues, and some of it's the fact that we're large (so it's hard to really drop below critical mass). But I've seen occasional presumptuousness on the part of some leaders, and I try to bring it up with them when it happens. Because I don't want us to end up with those kinds of problems. I've also seen it in other organizations, and sometimes I feel helpless to change it.

I thought some of my friends might be interested in discussing this (either here or in Daniel's journal), so rather than just commenting there I'm making an entry here. Besides, Daniel is new to LJ and not all that connected yet. So go say hi or something if you like; he won't mind.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This is so true in all volunteer organizations. I nearly quit as Treasurer at church a few months ago because of the grief I was getting from a completely unexpected source. Fortunately, there were a few lay leaders who took the time to talk to me and show their appreciation. I decided to stick it out a while longer. It has gotten gradually better, so I have hope. This year's Board is a great bunch.

Hmm. Having read the post, my conclusion was not "neglecting your volunteers is bad" but "evil vengeful power politics are evil." It really didn't read to me as clueless neglect; it read like deliberate snubs and chain-yankings.

I tend to agree with you, even though I subscribe to the addage: "Never ascribe to malace what you can to stupidity."

With all respect: that is a foolishly extremist adage, and dangerous to boot. Since human capacity for imagination is nigh endless, there will always be a rationalization one can come up so one "can" ascribe stupidity; that test amounts to one which can never be false. "If (1==1) then..."

A more moderate and reasonable adage is "Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

I tend to view "never attribute to malcce..." as a compact form of "never casually, without really considering things, attibute...". That is, if I see an action that is either stupid or malicious and I have no other data (past behavior), or I'm just too lazy to think it through, then I'm probably better off viewing it as stupidity in terms of determining my own actions. Later developments can, of course, show my initial judgement to be wrong, and if I have cause to be suspicious (I'm in a situation where I expect malicious actions), then I probably will think about it.

Which is very reasonable of you, and most people would say they do the same (you are logical enough, maybe you do. :) But I must point out there is, practically speaking an enormous bias force at work on that decision which our culture does not usually acknowledge, to our peril: "go along to get along". As has been shown by a number of dramatic experiments in psychology, including Milgram's, humans will, for whatever reason, tend to find rationales for believing nothing is really wrong in a threatening situation, even when it concerns their own immediate physical safety.

This is one of those issues which, at least in our culture, get caught up in a false dichotomy in most people's heads. The issue is seen as one of either attributing to malice or attributing to stupidity; that the issue is how to tell malice and stupidity apart is usually lost in discussions of the topic. And it really isn't represented by "never attibute to malice..."

Excellent points, and important for everyone to keep in mind.

There does seem to be that, yes. But evil vengeful power politics usually have collateral effects that the players aren't taking into account. For example, Daniel was a victim of power politics; the other members of his committee, who saw what happened to their chair, were also affected. People who are going to play evil vengeful power politics need to at least work to contain the damage. (This is true whether we're talking about volunteers, employees, family members, or whatever.)

If, for example, two board members want to go at each other, they should at least try to keep it within the board and not let it leak out to the rank-and-file members. If the seneschal is at war with the autocrat of the next event, they should try to keep it from impacting the event volunteers. If the cantor has a problem with one of the choir members, he shouldn't take it out on the rest of the choir. Because every congregation member, every event volunteer, every choir member (choose your example domain) is going to be at greater risk of flight (or lower morale) if you let him be affected by your fight.

I think wise players of evil vengeful power politics are at least aware of the bigger picture and contain things appropriately. Sadly, Daniel's board members are not wise.

Ah, yes. I completely agree that naked political warfare has collateral effects which are detrimental to the organization.

Well said, I'm sure that lots of people in volunteer organizations have similar stories. The problem I've had in the past is getting people to realize that humans are a resource that need to be taken care of much the same as money and space.

Here's a toughie -- how does one get the people who are being clueless or petty to realize that what they're doing is going to be bad for themselves in the long run?

I certainly don't know. I tried to let the folks at my congregation know last night at the board meeting, before I was called out. It seemed to go right over their heads. Sometimes, alas and sadly, experience is the only teacher. I just feel sad for the collateral damage.

Here's a toughie -- how does one get the people who are being clueless or petty to realize that what they're doing is going to be bad for themselves in the long run?

If I knew that, I'd be rich from books and giving seminars and stuff. :-)

Sometimes you're lucky and you get whacked with a small clue-by-four before you do anything too stupid. When I was kingdom chronicler I certainly did some clueless things involving my staff and local officers; fortunately, people I trusted said to me "y'know, that was pretty clueless -- next time you should do X" and I got the hint. (Or at least I think I did. :-) ) If you're an introspective person, maybe you realize it on your own when your background analysis process pipes up and says "y'know, that problem might have been avoided if you had done Y". (What, you mean everyone doesn't have background analysis processes? :-) ) But often, people are either dim or stubborn, and this doesn't work. So unless you stumble on some new creative approach to getting through to the person, you're kind of stuck until he changes.

It's always hard to know when to try to get through to the clueless or petty person and when to just save your sanity and walk away.

It's always hard to know when to try to get through to the clueless or petty person and when to just save your sanity and walk away.

Amen to that ;-) I've been trying lately to look at things interms of the Chivalric writing. Alot of times the question is then, "Am I obligated to employ Frankness and Honesty with that person?" Most of the time the answer is no, and I can happily walk away. If the answer is yes, then the question becomes, "What is the proper way to be Honest and Frank, while observing Courtesy?"

What a great way of looking at it! In particular, sometimes you aren't obligated to deliver the clue, and in that case if you think attempting to do so will do harm, you should walk away.

One of the best things you can do is to listen, and listen to those who have made the mistake before and learned from it. There really is meaning in the advice to respect and revere your elders, although when we're young, we often forget that in the headiness of youth.

(and note here that I'm talking emotional age, which is distinctly different from physical age)

If you're the person in need of the clue, learning to listen (if you get the clue that you need to do that :-) ) makes a big difference. If you're the person who needs to deliver the clue, things are harder.

I think it's Pirke Avot that teaches that a wise man learns from everyone. This is good advice to live by, I think -- you may be surprised by what people you were ready to dismiss can teach you. (Though in my more cynical moments I have to quash the retort that sometimes what you learn is that some people are idiots. :-) )

I have come to see learning from others, especially in the sense of being respectful of one's elders to learn from them, to be a skill, as opposed to merely a moral choice. It seems to me that insofar as I have it, I learned how to do that, and I have observed people being better and worse at it.

I am particularly mindful of a friend of mine who, when in the presence of someone he thought was an expert in something he cared about, would become a terrible braggart about the topic. The moment that person wasn't there, he couldn't be too efflusive in his praise for the absent expert. But he just didn't know or understand to shut up, sit down, be humble, and ask questions, if he wanted to enjoy that person's respect and attention. So the experts in questions thought the exact opposite of the case: they thought he was dissing them! They thought he must have no respect for their competance, and no interest in receiving correction from them.

YOu think you have to know a subject to get rich from books and seminars on it? Ha!

It depends on why they're clueless and/or petty. It depends on over what. It depends on how much or even whether they care about the long-term at all. It depends on how much ego they have invested in doing the job well, or at least being seen to do the job well. It depends on their cultural background and expectations. Probably it depends on a bunch of other stuff, too.

Let me give some examples of the above:

If someone really doesn't realize what they're doing is going to cause offense or mess up someone else, then sometimes all they need is to be politely informed. But sometimes the cluelessness goes deeper right into having problems understanding the difference between right and wrong. There are people (too many) who really think, for instance, preferential treatment of their pals is an appropriate use of the offices they hold. If you are dealing with someone who really thinks that, say, being the worship coordinator means that they only have to listen to their buddies ideas and only have to please their buddies' tastes, the problem really is getting them to understand that that's, at least, not socially acceptible, and, ideally, a Wrong Thing To Do.

Something else which adds a different spin to the ball is that some people don't care about the long-term in a given situation. Someone might hold a committee post because "someone had to" and they were strong-armed into it, and they have no identification with the job and see it with disdain as an irritating chore. Trying to tell such a person that they way they're doing something is going to have long-term negative consequences might not only cause them to laugh in your face, but actually give them the idea (possibly pre-consciously) of doing the job poorly to sabotage the group as an expression of their irritiation. If you think such a person is well meaning, sit them down and level with them. But if you think such a person will only feel more badgered by the burden, the only solution is to get them out of the job.

Sometimes people do things which seem clueless and/or petty because of differing cultural expectations. There are people who see all argument as hostility, and there are those people who think argument is a form of recreation. Putting people of both sorts on a board of directors can cause spectacular fire-works. From both sides, the other side is clueless and petty (those who are anti-argument seeming to be repressive and marginalizing, those who are pro-argument seeming to be antagonistic and unable to play nicely with others.)

There are people who see all argument as hostility, and there are those people who think argument is a form of recreation. Putting people of both sorts on a board of directors can cause spectacular fire-works.

Or entertainment. :-) A few months back I and another board member, who are both of the latter persuasion and each knew this about the other, went all-out at a board meeting over a proposed bylaws change, while other people looked on somewhat aghast. We had to explain to them that neither of us was mad at the other (and in fact we like each other), and that this really was the best way to hammer out the bugs in the wording.

Continuing this thread, I've posted a new comment in my journal, titled Recognizing Volunteers (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cahwyguy/15348.html) to discuss the best way to recognize the contributions of volunteers.

I'd welcome comments and ideas on this from all.

Daniel (using my picture, so you can see I'm more than just a reassurance marker)

I would have thought more people understood how to make organizations run well.

Actually, my impression is that relatively few people understand how to make organizations run well. Consider how many branches of how many clubs spend how much of their time embroiled in unnecessary politics, just to cite the most obvious manifestation. Doesn't indicate to me that the clues are well-propagated...

Nothing brought this point home to me like when I went searching for books on gardening and landscaping in townhouse sized lots. There are three ton of books out there on how to participate in homeowners associations!

I'm considering finding a couple (through ILL maybe) and seeing if they relate to volunteer organizations in general. Might be interesting.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

organizational behavior 101

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

It depends

tangent

no subject

no subject

no subject