What's the Most Important Quality in a Leader?

Good morning.
“And the beat goes on.......................”

What are the qualities that make a leader effective, productive and successful (not just a good manager or administrator - but leader)?

There is no shortage of attributes that might qualify.  Here are some:

• Likeability.  Effective leaders are people who are likable across a wide spectrum of interactions.  We all know people whose personalities and chemistries endear people to them right away. It isn’t always that they are charismatic, but more that you just like them on meeting and working with them.  The seem to have personalities that encourage people to gravitate to them - want to work with them.  Usually easy going, they are non threatening.  I am not sure whether this asset is innate or it can be developed.
• Vision.  Leaders are dreamers of what can be, not what can’t happen.  They aren’t easily discouraged and they can convey their ideas to those about them.
• Able to delegate authority.   Leaders spend their time moving things forward.  They surround themselves with good people and generally let those people perform without trying to micromanage them.  They can see strengths in others.
• Experienced.  Leaders usually have practical experience under their belts.  They have been around the proverbial block and recognize both barriers and opportunities.  
• Knowledgable.  Leaders know what they are talking about, and if the don’t they say so.
• Skilled.  Leaders have specific skill sets.  They aren’t necessarily the best at everything, but they are very good at a number of things.  
• Open and transparent people managers.  Leaders are nurturers. They can empathize with others.  They are able to admit their own mistakes and they neither hide things, make excuses nor b.s. people.
• Motivators / cheerleaders.  Leaders generally know how to get people to give their best.  They are caring and they gives credit where due.  
• Good listeners.  Leaders talk less and listen more. They are open to ideas, suggestions and other ways of thinking.
• Focused.  Leaders are able to zero in on what needs to be done.  They are implementers in making things happen.
• Adaptable.  Leaders are able to change directions. They don’t get stuck in the past and are open to what can work.
• Sincere and believable.  Leaders don’t put on airs, don’t waste time in posturing or gossip.  They attract followers because they project their own belief in what they say.  They walk the walk.  
• Integrity - Leaders are ethical and honest.  They strive to do the right thing. There is a strong sense of humanity about them.
• Optimistic.  Leaders are believers in the possible.  The glass is almost always half full.  
• Enthusiastic.  Leaders are boosters and they convey their enthusiasm to others.  That belief is infectious.
• Organized.  Leaders are organized and know how to be productive and efficient.
• Respectful.  Leaders respect those who work ‘for’ and ‘with’ them.  They truly care about people and treat everyone equally.  While tenacious, they are genuinely kind.
• Humility.  Leaders are rarely full of themselves.  They aren’t guilty of false modesty, but neither do the trumpet their own horns.  While they take their work and their missions very seriously, they are comfortable with their own personal vulnerability.
• Communicators.  Leaders know how to communicate across many lines.  They can express themselves well orally and in writing and they can get their ideas across without excess confusion or complexity.
• Able to deal with hard realities.  Leaders don’t live in a fantasy world.  Even their dreams are tempered by reality.
• Courage.  Leaders have the strength to act boldly even in the face of adversity.  They welcome challenges and are largely unafraid.
• Consistency.  Leaders don’t blow hot and cold.  They are balanced - objective, fair, and reasonable.
• Creative.  Leaders are thinkers and creators.
• Sense of humor.  Leaders like to laugh, even at their own expense.  Their egos rarely get in their way.  They understand that “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”
• Intelligent.  Leaders are usually smart.  Book smart, street smart. Intuitively smart.
• Insightful.  Leaders can see the nuances in things.  They have good intuition.
• Inspired and inspiring.  Leaders understand the importance of trust.
• Commitment to ongoing learning.  Leaders acknowledge that they don’t know everything, and that they are really never done learning.
• Confidence / self-esteem.  Leaders are confident.  They trust their instincts.
• Solution oriented.  Leaders can identify obstacles and barriers and they look for solutions.
• Passion.  Leaders are passionate about what they do.
• Team oriented.  Leaders recognize that their success is dependent on a whole team of people. 
• Patience / tolerance.  Leaders are demanding, but reasonable.
• Authenticity.  Leaders are comfortable in their own skins and show it.
• Tenacity - Leaders Don’t Quit.

I know.  Sounds the the Boy Scout oath:  ("A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent").  A saint! (Gad, I can't believe I still remember that).

There are probably other traits not listed, and doubtless some people will see many traits on the list as irrelevant.  Obviously no one person embodies all of the above.  Leaders aren’t necessarily saints.  But they are, in the final analysis, people the rest of us want to follow.  And the best of them embody some of the above traits.

Is there a single trait among all these that is the one single attribute that makes a good leader?  Is there a top ten?

I think the most important ones include:
Projecting an air of confidence and inspiring people to believe you have a vision of what might be and that you can get the job done - that your experience and knowledge and skills will carry the day.  In short, getting people to believe in your leadership through focus, passion and adaptability.

If there is a single most important trait to get people to follow you, to work with you, my own experience is that likability is the key.  I agree with Rocco Landesman’s comments in the recent interview he did here.  People will work hard for you if they like you.  More doors will open, more things are possible if you have that kind of persona.  Some are born with it and do nothing with it, some have it and use it, some learn it - most simply don’t have it at all.  There are ways to nourish and grow your likability and it seems to me that to the extent people believe you have integrity, that you are on their side, that you will fight to protect their backs, that you listen to them, respect them, care about them - believe in them - as people - then you are just more likable.

I would hope that as a field we might talk more about what it is we really want in our leaders (and why), and how, to the extent it is possible, we can help our leaders develop those qualities.

Have a good week.

Don’t Quit.
Barry

Board Micromanagement is the Number One Executive Director Complaint

Good morning.
“And the beat goes on...............................”

Cross purpose conflict
One of the most frequent complaints of Executive Directors vis a vis their Boards is the issue of micromanagement - the tendency of Boards to want to constantly look over the shoulder of the chief executive and do his/her job (and often staff member’s jobs too) themselves.

Why does this happen?
There are any number of reasons a Board tilts towards micromanagement as a default way to run their organizations.  Here are some of the factors at play:

1. Board members often assume their job is to be hands on managers for the organization.  Many board members are recruited because of specific skills and experience in a given area, and they conclude that active participation in that area is their contribution to the organization.  They are often unclear from the very beginning of their tenures what their role is suppose to be.  John Carver has preached for a long time, that the Board is responsible principally for the financial health of the organization, and to hire the CEO, and that Board members must then let that hire do his/her job.  Alas, that sage advice is often ignored as the norm.  
2. Board members - like most of us - are experienced in doing things, not necessarily in leading.  They have no concept or experience with being overseers and leaders charged with big picture “vision” items, and honestly believe that hands-on doing is the only real value they have to offer.  While they may appreciate delegation of authority in their own workplaces, they are not encouraged to embrace that thinking as nonprofit board members.  
3. There is often no clear (written) policy about the role of Board members and which areas are their responsibility and which areas are not.  Absent such a clearly defined policy, they fill the void with the desire to exercise what they think is their right of authority.  
4. Board members often assume they know best (or better) than those hired to do a specific management job.  Often they assume that if they don’t get involved, the job either won’t get done or it won’t be done right.  This is a basic mistrust issue.  
5. Board members are frequently unprepared and shy away from their principal role of fiduciary overseers.  Many, if not most, are often uncomfortable in the fund raising role.  It is simply more interesting and satisfying to pitch in on specific operational or programatic jobs.  
6. Whether in response to some recent or long ago crisis, or the remnant of a time when the organization was without staff or jobs were done primarily on a volunteer basis, there is a legacy within the organization of Board members filling in the gap.
7. Board members see themselves as the final decision makers on virtually all aspects of the organization.  They are often territorial in defense of their authority, and see any challenge to that absolute authority as threatening.

So what is to be done?

1. The Board Chair is the critical point person in this issue.  It is their responsibility to insure that Board members do not overly micromanage and that CEOs and staffs are allowed to do what they were hired to do.  If the Board Chair does not fully understand or appreciate that role, or if s/he does not perform that function, it may be advisable to bring in some outside coach or other resource that will help the Board Chair (and the CEO) to clarify their roles and responsibilities.  The goal is to get the Chair to see him/herself as a partner with the CEO and to help redirect Board tendencies to micromanage into more positive pursuits that benefit, not hinder, the governance of the organization.  
2. In that light, it is essential for the Board to have a clear, written policy as to who is responsible for what, and to periodically revisit that policy to clarify and remind the whole Board of what is expected of them and where the boundaries lie.  It isn’t always easy to move a Board unfamiliar with its policy making role away from its tendency to micromanagement as a way to fill the vacuum the lack of policy making creates. Boards must ultimately understand that the decisions that impact the overarching goals of the organization and its values are their job - but that the specifics of how that is implemented is the line CEO / staff function.  If the CEO fails to deliver, the Board option is to replace that individual.  If they do not appreciate that role, or simply reject it, then micromanagement is very likely to be an ongoing issue.  New hire CEOs should be extremely wary of taking any position in an organization that does not embrace this kind of policy.  Thinking that a Board historically committed to micromanagement is not a big issue is a serious mistake.  Qualified, talented leaders should reject offers from organizations that have proven themselves incapable of foregoing the urge to micromanage.  That is one way to begin to change the phenomenon.   Funders should insist that such a written policy exist.  
3. Boards need to be encouraged to lead as their principal function, not to manage.  Again, outside input as to why and how that best works may be advantageous. Most Boards are unfamiliar with conceptual organizational dynamics from a Board perspective.   Knowledge in that area is essential and needs to be an annual agenda item for all Boards.  Funders ought to be involved by insisting that organizations demonstrate efforts to insure their boards act as leaders not usurpers of staff functions.
4. Dialogue within the organization should always be about the impact that any given policy (or disregard thereof) has on the organization.  Depersonalizing the issue is essential in getting all sides to see that impact.  It is better to talk about the organization than about specific personalities.
5. A periodic inventory of how the Board spends its time may be instructive.  How much time does the Board spend second guessing or actually performing what are logically staff functions v. how much time is spent on financial oversight and big picture issues that affect success at achieving the organization’s mission.  
6. Planning - long term strategic planning and even short term specific programmatic or operational planning may afford the Board an ultimately more satisfying way to channel their involvement and offer clearly delineated lines of authority.  In short, the more a Board can discuss its role and how to best discharge that role, the better it will likely be at addressing the challenge of micromanaging.  Planning as a process may also more clearly define what the staff does and where it needs help.
7. Board members should be encouraged to share with the Chair and the CEO their concerns and fears as a way of dealing with confusion over how they can best contribute to the organization.  
8. Staff / Board retreats may allow for the airing of grievances and concerns by both groups in a relatively non-threatening way.  There should be some mechanism by which CEOs and staff can bring their issues to the table.
9. Board term limits and rotating committee assignments, meaningful and comprehensive orientation protocols for new board members, and periodic review of  Board member performance are all essential to stemming the tide of micromanagement.  

Some Boards may simply refuse to cede authority to the CEO and staff and will not give up the temptation to micromanage.  Those organizations are ultimately in trouble because in the future it will be axiomatically much more difficult for them to attract leadership talent.  Some intervention mechanism is needed, but I am unsure how that would be created and employed, but for it coming as a mandate from major funders (and it is clearly in the interest of funders to shy away from funding organizations that cannot get a handle on micromanagement.)   How does a candidate for a job with a new organization discover the existence of a micomanagement problem?  Ask a lot of questions, including does the organization have a written policy on the issue of lines of authority and decision making.  Absent that, I would hope more and more leadership talent will categorically reject solicitation offers from those organizations that do not have such a written policy (though I appreciate that in tough economic times there are many leaders who will make the mistake that they can somehow "deal" effectively with the micromanagement issue.)

This is an issue that is likely far more systemically embedded and much more of a problem than we have acknowledged, and it really needs to be addressed.

Have a good week.

Don’t Quit
Barry

Solutions Will Remain Elusive in 2013

Good morning.
“And the beat goes on.........................”

Welcome back.  Let’s hope 2013 is a good year for all of us.

What Likely Won’t Happen
For several years I use to run an end of the year blog wherein I invited leaders from around the country to share their predictions for what might happen in our field in the coming year.  While that exercise yielded some interesting observations and hopeful fantasizing about what might be, the issues we face remain pretty much the same every year - and it is very difficult to precisely and accurately prognosticate as to what will happen to move on all those issues.

Recently Thomas Cott resurrected the idea and invited his readers to submit their predictions for 2013, and his contributors chimed in with some salient insights into next year.

I wish I knew what was going to happen.  But alas my magic ball has its limitations.  What I can offer though is what will likely not happen.

So let me take a stab at what are some of the general issues facing our sector from that perspective:

 Arts Education.  Every year we seem to move a little forward in this arena.  We gather more evidence, more data, make more inroads into academic research, marshall better arguments and get an incremental increase in support, if not funding.  We continue to gain momentum and the ranks of those actively involved in trying to move us forward continues to swell.  But as far as I can see, we are not yet anywhere near a tipping point.  I think GIA’s efforts to secure more federal funding availability has great potential, but we will need supporting legislation and budget language that is very specific and closes all the loopholes that would otherwise allow arts directed funding to be used locally for other purposes.  I think we will continue to gather relevant data and make ever more convincing arguments, and I think we will increasingly succeed in getting the issue to the forefront, but the issue will remain largely a local issue (and largely a budget matter) and the wealthy school districts will have arts education and the poorer districts will likely not.  We will see a little movement in the area (thanks to the yeoman work of literally thousands of people in the arts and education fields), and we will see some exemplary programs, but don’t expect any sea change yet.  Winning this battle is a process - a long process.

 Equity / Scale.  There will be increased sector wide discussion of who gets funded and who does not and whether or not the current practices are fair, or even make sense.  There will be increased pressure on all funders to spread the dollars wider - and specifically to insure that the overall percentage that goes to the very few organizations does not remain as high as it has been historically.  I think there will significant movement in the pressure on funders in this area including more pressure to fund smaller and newer arts initiatives, and more diverse organizations, but I think we will not see in 2013 any wholesale changes in who gets the money.  Moreover, while we will see more funding to sector wide initiatives that will ostensibly benefit us all, those efforts will continue to be a hard sell and nowhere near the level we need to move us forward as a field.  We will continue to see funding almost exclusively in terms of support for local organizations.

 Succession /  Baby Boomer Exit.  This issue is close to coming to a head.  Increasingly more and more people are arguing convincingly that we have to figure out a way to allow more younger leaders to take the reigns of power - least we lose them to other sectors, and squander one of our major assets.   But we have yet to devise any strategy that protects the Boomer involvement and still moves us towards greater succession.  Don’t expect any sea change movement of Boomers out of their jobs, but do expect that the issue itself will soon move to the front burner.  You will see some familiar names of long time leaders retire this year - some will be surprising (and the jockeying to replace them will be Machiavellian).

 Audience Development.  Of course the question of how to expand our audiences will - as it has for two decades or more - remain a hot button topic.  Expect even more research and even yet more theories about how to address the shrinking audience issue.  The real interesting part of the equation is how do we better capture the tools of technology to get art to the people, and I expect a lot more specific ideas to be generated in that arena.  That said, unfortunately I doubt we will move as quickly and as massively as I think we really ought to in embracing technology as an audience development strategy (we are already hopelessly behind the curve).  I suspect we will stay far too mired in our bricks and mortar mindset approach at the expense of our future.  Somewhere, of course, is the right balance.  To my mind, it isn’t what we are doing.  And I doubt 2013 will see us figure out how to really tackle this challenge.

 Funding - Public and Private.  Don’t expect to see across the board success in increasing government funding, nor in upping significantly our percentage of foundation / corporate or individual philanthropic money.  I think we will hold our own - but that clearly will not be enough to solve the myriad challenges all organizations face.  The level of our political clout will remain anemic at best.  Many organizations will continue to struggle financially, and many more will close their doors.

 Easing the process of getting grants.  As a subset of the funding issue, there will be increased pressure on funders to deregulate the process so that recipients do not have to jump through so many hoops to qualify for the money.  Given the increase in funder required accountability and evaluative reporting, the pressure to make things easier - while appreciated by the funders - simply will not yield any substantial further change in protocols.

 Earned Income.  And so the pressure will continue for all organizations to increase their own earned income, and to be more “entrepreneurial” in their business approach.  In the main this is easy to support, but it clearly will be easier and more appropriate for some organizations, and very difficult and wrong for others.  We can’t take some “cookie cutter” approach and say everybody needs to become successful entrepreneurs.  We will continue to grapple with this in 2013, and I think we will see more discussion, but not necessarily any practical answers.  It will remain one of the hot "buzzwords" of the year.

New Model to replace the 501 c 3.  We have been talking about this seemingly forever.  What we need is for the government to revisit the whole “public benefit corporation’ concept and figure out how nonprofits can be permitted to make a profit - whether from their direct efforts or from investments.  The rationale behind barring profit making (at least from indirect and non related secondary business efforts) is that if we don’t pay taxes, we will have an unfair competitive advantage vs. those in the private sector that do pay taxes.  But that is a ‘straw dog’ in many ways, as the private sector has all kinds of other advantages.  This challenge is bigger than the arts sector.  Nothing will come of this in 2013.

 Research and Data.  This is one area that I expect we will see major growth in the next year with expanded areas into which we conduct research and continuing efforts to make that research sound and viable.  While we won’t fully successfully address the criticism that we use data that correlates with desired outcomes in ways to prove causality, we will increasingly take on that challenge.

 Leadership.  We will continue to talk about what kind of leadership we need, where it will come from and how we will get it, but we will remain long on talk and short on strategies.  What we need are programs that will invest in people - not just in the organizations where they work - but in specific people themselves.  Along this line we need to finally move forward with a comprehensive, national program to provide professional development training opportunities that are organized, widely available, affordable, and which address the demands of the marketplace.  There are lots of options out there, but they are not centralized, are too often inconveniently offered, too expensive, and not always tailored to the needs of our sector.  I hope we finally recognize this area as critical to our future and that we move beyond the piecemeal approach we have thus far taken.  I am cautiously hopeful.

 Artist / Administrator Divide.  We will continue to speculate about the divide between artists and administrators in ways that are not helpful, that widen the gap (if there really is one) and compound, not address, the problem.  I suppose expansion of the discussion is of value in itself.

 Community involvement.  I think it likely that arts organizations across the board will make some major inroads into becoming more meaningfully involved in their local communities, though we will continue to grapple with how this best works, and how we can evaluate our efforts.  Going against conventional wisdom, I think one of the major challenges will be in successfully convincing potential community partners that they ought to work more closely with us.  I am not sure we will be as widely and eagerly embraced as we think.

I hope that viable solutions arise in each of these areas and that my reservations turn out to be unfounded and outright wrong.  But realistically, I think change will come slowly and that there will continue to be more talk than action.  Yet, I remain buoyed by all the assets on the plus side of our ledger, not the least of which are the tens of thousands of you who work hard every day to make the arts the beacon they are.

Have a great week.  And thank you all for making 2012 this blog's most successful yet with greatly expanded page hits and subscriber base.  I appreciate it very much.

Don’t Quit
Barry