Tim Bryce - Freemasonry from the Edge

Freemasonry from the Edge - Tim Bryce brings a commanding presence of Masonic Leadership and wisdom on all aspects of the fraternity from the day to day operation of a lodge to the underpinnings of living the meaning of Masonry.

10% Effectiveness

January 18, 2012 by TimBryce

Hmm… I came across an interesting management study today that discussed the ineffectiveness of managers. This study is equally applicable to the fraternity and may give us some insight why the fraternity is floundering. In a study by academics Heike Bruch and Sumantra Ghoshal, they revealed some interesting impressions of the decisiveness of managers: “What we found in our research surprised us. Only about 10 percent of the managers took purposeful action.” The remainder were busy, just not very effective: 40 percent were energetic but unfocused; 30 percent had low energy, little focus and tended to procrastinate; and 10% were focused, but not very energetic.

Let that sink in: only 10% of the managers took purposeful action. That would imply only one in ten Lodges are led by decisive Masters. To me, that’s a scary statistic. It means we are not setting goals and devising ways to achieve those goals. Maybe it’s time for some management training in our Lodges.

Read more on the study, Study: Most managers are ineffective.

Rewarding Incompetence

January 9, 2012 by TimBryce

It’s not about “taking turns”; it’s about getting the job done properly.

Throughout the corporate world we have seen examples of the Peter Principle in practice, whereby people rise above their level of competency; people who make a mockery of their job and discredit their company and themselves in the process. Perhaps they were promoted because nobody else wanted the job or perhaps they were simply selected based on seniority; maybe they politicked for the job and were rewarded not for what they had accomplished but their ability to kiss the backside of someone else in authority, aka “cronyism”. Regardless, they have risen above their ability to effectively perform the job they were assigned. In many cases, the job in question is just a pit stop in the road to the top, but more often than not, they covet the position they have acquired and either perform it with an iron fist or just let the work go to pieces (or both). This naturally raises the ire of subordinates and others more qualified to perform the work. It also becomes rather obvious to customers and vendors who have to deal with the person. Naturally, they scratch their head in bewilderment as to why this person was selected for promotion.

We also see this phenomenon in nonprofit organizations where people are seeking social stature as opposed to performing anything of merit, be it a homeowner association, a sports club, a professional trade society, a civic organization or whatever. Those who tend to covet titles in such groups normally suffer from low self-esteem as they never accomplished anything of substance in their professional lives and now crave recognition. Even in the most rudimentary 501(c) organization, they fail to grasp it is a legal entity in the eyes of the state which must conform to certain legalities. Failure to execute specific rules and regulations can easily lead to lawsuits and disaster.

I have seen too many Masonic Lodges where officers are promoted “through the chairs” without making an effort to learn anything along the way. If they graduate to the East, the Lodge usually suffers and the other officers are forced to pickup the slack. If they are voted out of office before reaching the top they are crestfallen and fade from view. Both scenarios upset the harmony of the Lodge and is indicative of the barbaric way Masons elect officers.

To the individual, promotion is a confirmation of his abilities. If he is a poor performer, his advancement sends a dangerous message that his work meets with the approval of others. Naturally, the person will not change and continue in his faulty ways. If his progression is arrested though, he will question why. Hopefully, he will receive some coaching along the way before this happens which is one reason why I’m a big proponent of Employee Performance Evaluations (click for a free COPY). Such reviews are just as pertinent in a nonprofit organization as they are in the corporate world. Without such reviews or coaching, and the person is rejected, he is blindsided and his ego is shattered.

To assure the right people are selected for key posts, political machines are often devised thereby compromising the harmony of an organization. You either play ball with the good old boys in charge or forget about progressing through the organization. Sadly, you find this in both the corporate and nonprofit world. It’s distasteful and ultimately impedes the organization’s effectiveness. Whenever the wrong person is put into a position of authority, the systems of the organization falter, productivity slips, the moral values of the business are put into question, and harmony is disrupted. Basically, it’s a “lose-lose” situation that can be difficult to rectify.

Aside from the political aspect, I am at a loss as to why people believe they should be elevated, particularly if they have not demonstrated they possess the skills or fortitude necessary to successfully perform the work. Perhaps it is a sense of entitlement, that it’s “their turn” to be promoted. Such a mindset is invalid and should be rebuked as nobody is entitled to a position based on “turns”; it’s ludicrous. People should be selected for promotion based strictly on qualifications and availability. In situations where people are selected out of desperation, it should be made clear to them that retaining their job and any possible advancement in the future depends on their ability to successfully execute their job and prepare for the next. The lack of counseling and instruction in this regard does them a disservice. Likewise, the failure to heed the advice does the organization a disservice.

Nonprofit organizations are particularly susceptible to promoting people through the ranks without merit. Such organizations today are struggling for members and consequently beg people to take positions out of desperation. The group, therefore, shouldn’t be surprised when such people accomplish nothing. Instead of pleading with people to take a volunteer job, perhaps it is time to merge with another like-minded organization, change your approach to membership, curtail what you are trying to accomplish, or call it a day.

Part of the problem is the myth that everybody must win, that nobody loses, which is something we have been fostering in our youth over the last few decades. This is just plain fallacious. Just about every aspect of life involves instances of winners and losers with the lesson being: if you want something, you must earn it. Only then will you value it as opposed to having it dropped in your lap without lifting a finger.

So, why do we reward incompetence? Maybe it’s because we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings; maybe we want to throw someone a bone as a political gesture; maybe it’s someone’s “turn”; or maybe we simply do not have anyone else to do the job right now. Regardless, the person has received it for all the wrong reasons. Hopefully, they will rise to the occasion and do a competent job. Unfortunately, most do not and damage the organization, not to mention earning the ire and resentment of others. Remember this: for every person who takes a job they have no intention of performing, somebody else must compensate and perform the duty.

Rewarding incompetence is one of the most common management snafus that has cursed companies of all sizes and shapes for years. Longevity of a problem doesn’t make it right, it just means people do not want to deal with it, hoping instead it will go away on its own which, of course, never does. The message must be made clear to all involved, promotions must be earned. In desperate situations where people are forced into positions they are not qualified, they must be coached properly, but if they fail to assume their duties and responsibilities, or even try to put forth an honest effort, it must be made vividly clear their journey upward in the corporate hierarchy will come to a screeching halt. Advancing does a disservice to the company, the people, and the individual. It is just plain bad business.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND

Dunedin Lodge (FL) Recognizes Dep. Todd Hoddinott as “Deputy of the Year”

November 29, 2011 by TimBryce

The Master of Dunedin Lodge, W:.Mike Palenik (right), congratulates Deputy Todd Hoddinott.
Looking on is the Deputy’s wife, Lisa.
Click on photo to enlarge.

DUNEDIN, FL, USA (November 28, 2011) – As has become a tradition for the last seven years, Dunedin Masonic Lodge No. 192 recognized a Pinellas County Sheriff’s Deputy for outstanding service to the community. The 2011 “Deputy of the Year” award was presented to Deputy Tom Hoddinott at a special dinner held at Kally-K’s Restaurant in Dunedin. Making the presentation was W:.Ken Giesow, PM of Dunedin Lodge. Also in attendance was Major Wayne Morris, Deputy Hoddinott’s supervisor, along with fellow officers from the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office.

According to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, “Deputy Tom Hoddinott has been a Pinellas County Sheriff’s deputy since July 1985. He started out in the Detention and Corrections Bureau and has served in various capacities with the agency including Patrol Operations and the Criminal Investigations Division where he worked in the Property Crimes Section assigned to the City of Dunedin. He is currently assigned to the Patrol Operations Bureau working out of the North District Station on Dayshift.”

On August 26, 2011 Deputy Hoddinott was on patrol in the City of Dunedin driving north on Pinehurst Road. Deputy Hoddinott noticed a suspicious vehicle backed into the driveway of a residence. Upon investigation, he discovered and broke up a major marijuana farm being grown inside the residence. Based on the Deputy’s intuition, coupled with his many years of experience, resulted in an excellent self-initiated criminal case being made. The male who burglarized the home was arrested for Residential Burglary and Violation of Probation and the owner of the house was arrested for felony Manufacturing/Cultivation of Marijuana. This subject was also currently on probation for a previous charge of Sale, Manufacture and Delivery of Marijuana. The equipment used to grow the marijuana was disabled and 33 marijuana plants were taken off the street. For this self-initiated act which contributed to a valuable law enforcement accomplishment, and for the outstanding work he does every day, Deputy Hoddinott was nominated to be Dunedin Lodge’s Deputy of the Year.

For his efforts, Dunedin Lodge gave Deputy Hoddinott a dinner in his honor, awarded him a plaque, and a gift of $100 which the Deputy immediately donated to the Florida Sheriff’s Youth Ranch which helps to prevent delinquency and develop strong, lawful, resilient, and productive citizens who will make a positive contribution to our communities for years to come.

According to the Master of the Lodge, W:.Mike Palenik, PM “Dunedin Lodge is proud of our long tradition of supporting local law enforcement personnel. On behalf of the Lodge, we congratulate Deputy Hoddinott and thank him for his years of service and dedication. We are proud of the PCSO.”

When Is It Necessary To Change?

October 17, 2011 by TimBryce

Among the nonprofit organizations I belong to, there is one where I serve as secretary of the local branch. Like any nonprofit, there are records to be maintained, dues notices to be issued, reports to be filed with headquarters, minutes to be taken, and different mailings made to the membership. It’s not exactly rocket science. When I assumed office, I implemented a data base management system (DBMS) to track membership records and generate reports and mailing labels. I also send as much documentation as possible by e-mail in order to save money on postage and printing costs. All of this has saved us considerable time, effort, and money.

Over the last couple of years I’ve noticed our headquarters has changed the way they produce the annual dues cards and notices for the local branches. Prior to this, the dues notices were printed on a 80 column high speed printer on special carbon stock that formed an envelope and insert. All that was necessary was to burst the envelopes along the perforation marks, slap a stamp on it, and throw it in the mail. The envelope and enclosed dues notice may not have been graphically dazzling, but it worked quite well for many years. Likewise, dues cards were printed on the same high-speed printer which were also burst and separated along perforation marks. Again, the card wasn’t the most elegant from a graphical perspective, but it wasn’t bad either.

This all changed recently where the dues notices, cards, and mailing labels are now printed on special stock and are graphically impressive. The problem though is they are cumbersome to separate, fold, and insert in envelopes (which we now have to purchase separately). In other words, what was once a relatively simple task had become more labor intensive, costing more time and money to perform. The big question is, Why? What was headquarters trying to accomplish? To perhaps produce a better looking card that is stored and forgotten in a wallet? To produce a better looking dues notice for the post office? As someone who has been in the systems business for a number of years, I suspect the old approach was considerably cheaper to perform.

The scenario I describe herein happens every day not just in nonprofit organizations, but in corporations around the world. If anything is constant, it is change (Bryce’s Law). We live in a perpetual state of change where our systems change, our businesses change, our people change, and our technology changes. Change is natural and can be caused by a variety of reasons, such as government regulations, competition, economics, etc. The point is, you change when it is absolutely necessary to do so, not just because you contrarily feel like doing so. Change for the sake of change is madness. The example I describe is one where change is implemented merely to appear fashionable. There was no other reason as the old approach was working just fine, thank you. The point is, you should change only when it is cost effective to do so. This means it is necessary to demonstratively prove you offer a better solution; saving money or time, or perhaps a totally new avenue aimed at addressing specific business needs. In the case I described, I do not believe the developers did their homework and, because of this, have complicated the lives of many branch secretaries; all because someone wanted to show he was being fashionable with technology, which is perhaps the worst reason for change (yet is quite common). Always remember, there is a heavy price to pay for keeping up with the Jones’.

I can tell you authoritatively, whoever redesigned the dues notices and cards at headquarters was certainly not a systems man. Probably nothing more than a glorified programmer in sheep’s clothing.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim’s THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

What is Fair?

September 20, 2011 by TimBryce

Good question. This is something we all demand but I don’t think we really know what fair is; to illustrate:

In this country we have established an extensive system of jurisprudence involving lawyers, judges, juries, appeals, etc. Yet, when a decision is finally reached, we claim it wasn’t fair. Case in point, the Casey Anthony jury decision. America felt she literally got away with murder.

In sports, we trust the officials will be fair in regulating the game, but we become unglued when we find an official tampering with the rules. When I coached Little League baseball, I would resent umpires who called balls and strikes one way for a team and different for the other. I didn’t realize the strike zone could change so significantly between innings.

The news media outlets tout themselves as fair and impartial, but I don’t know anyone who honestly believes it.

In the work place, we hope our bosses and coworkers will treat us fairly in our working relationships, and feel dejected when we find ourselves on the losing end of a political maneuver. All we want is a fair and even playing field to compete on. Rarely do we get it.

On the highway, we believe everyone should observe the same rules of the road and are aghast when someone flagrantly violates them, while others get stopped for petty moving violations.

We want people to pay their fair share of taxes, but argue about how this should be accomplished. Some suggest a flat tax, others want regressive taxation whereby the rich must pay for the poor.

We believe countries should treat each other equitably and are outraged when we find a violation of agreements thereby threatening peace or disrupting economics.

Being “fair” is an obsession with a lot of people, but only if it is in their favor. As much as we harangue about fairness, deep down we really don’t want it. Fairness is a human interpretation. It is in the eye of the beholder. What one person considers fair, another will consider just the opposite, even if the law, rule or regulation is documented in writing. It takes an impartial and informed person to determine what is equitable for all of the parties concerned. Unfortunately, it seems people today are easily prejudiced and rely more on gossip and spin as opposed to facts.

Fairness is based on who interprets the rules, usually by the person(s) in power, not by plurality of vote. As the power shifts, our interpretation of fairness shifts. This means our sense of fairness changes over time as perspectives and priorities change. For example, what would be considered “fair” by our nation’s founding fathers is certainly not the same as those in government today. In the early days, it was considered “fair” for land owners to be the only people allowed to vote in elections because they were considered responsible citizens, not shiftless rabble. Naturally, this changed over the years so any Tom, Dick, or Mary can vote regardless how “responsible” they were as citizens. Today, elections are won more by media spin than by the true issues of the day. Yet, we believe this is fair.

Our perception of fairness is based on our moralistic makeup which, obviously, varies based on cultural and religious differences. To illustrate, the morals of a Salvation Army Colonel will be substantially different than an atheist gang-banger from the ‘hood. I cannot imagine any commonality between the two. This is what happens when you live in a heterogeneous society. Japan, on the other hand is more homogenous in nature and as such, shares moral values which leads to consistent interpretations of what is right and wrong. The point is, as morality declines or becomes splintered through incompatible interpretations, it compounds the problem of realizing consistent fairness. The greater the uniformity in morality, the more likely fairness will be consistently applied.

Fairness is often defined by a plurality of vote, be it polls, legislatures, or a jury. It is their perception only, not necessarily what is fair. We have all seen too many votes that led to erroneous results primarily because those in judgment are not properly informed or lack the ability to offer an unbiased verdict.

As the populace becomes more disjointed, we write legislation based on poll numbers or elections, but this does not necessarily mean it is fair, only that it is the perception of the plurality, which may be right, but also could be wrong.

So, whether you are on a ball field, in a classroom, in the workplace, or wherever, you must recognize that absolute fairness is a myth. It is based on the interpretation and whims of the people who interpret the rules. Even if we were to automate decisions by computer, we must remember such rules are programmed by humans with all of their frailties. In other words, the computer will only render a decision as programmed by the human-being.

If you are upset that something is unfair, get over it. King Solomon died thousands of years ago. You win some, you lose some. Put your best foot forward and hope you’ll be treated fairly.

“Forget fair. Our world was not designed to be fair.”
– Tom Hopkins
“How to Master the Art of Selling Anything”

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim’s THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

Managing a Nonprofit Organization

August 11, 2011 by TimBryce

Recently I was adding up the number of Board of Directors I have served on over the years for nonprofit organizations. This includes computer societies, fraternal organizations, homeowner associations, even Little League. The number was close to 40 where I have served in some capacity or other, everything from president, to vice president, secretary, division director, finance chairman, publicity and public relations, newsletter editor, webmaster, even historian (not to mention the many Masonic positions I have held). In other words, I think I’ve learned a thing or two about nonprofit organizations over the years. One of the first things I learned early on is that unless you manage the nonprofit group, it will manage you.

Running a nonprofit group is not exactly rocket science and is actually pretty simple, but surprisingly few people grasp the basics and end up bungling the organization thereby creating upheaval for its constituents. If you are truly interested in properly managing a nonprofit group, consider these ten principles that have served me well over the years:

1. Know the rules. Get a copy of the governing docs, read them, and keep them with you. Do not try to hide them. In fact, make them available to your constituents either in paper form or as a download on the computer (such as a PDF file). Got a briefcase dedicated to your group? Keep a copy of the docs in it and, if an electronic version is available, place an icon on your desktop to quickly access it.

2. Get to know your constituents. How can you expect to adequately serve them if you do not know what their interests are or the group’s priorities as they perceive them? They won’t always be correct, but understand their perceptions and deal with them accordingly. You might want to circulate a survey to get their view on certain subjects, and to solicit their support.

3. Communicate – not only with the other members of the board, but with your constituency as well. Failure to do so only raises suspicions about what you are doing. Newsletters, e-mail blasts, and web pages are invaluable in this regard, particularly the latter where you can post news, governing docs, contact information, meeting minutes, audit reports, correspondence, etc. Simple communications will clear up a lot of the problems you will face as an officer on the board.

4. Administer – keep good records, regardless if government regulations require it or not. Whether you are maintaining records with pencil and paper or by computer, it is important that accurate records be maintained, particularly about the group’s membership, logs of activities, attendance, finances, minutes, etc. It is not really that complicated to perform; you just need someone who pays attention to detail. Don’t have the manpower to do it yourself? Then hire someone, such as a management company, who can competently keep track of things.

5. Lead – people like to know where they are headed. If you are in charge of the group, articulate your objectives and prepare a plan to get you there. Also, do not try to micromanage everything. Nonprofit groups are primarily volunteer organizations and the last thing they want is Attila the Hun breathing down their necks. Instead, manage from the bottom-up. Delegate responsibility, empower people, and follow-up. Make sure your people know their responsibilities and are properly trained. Other than that, get out of their way and let them get on with their work.

6. Add value to your service. People like to think they are getting their money’s worth for paying their dues. In planning your organization’s activities, be creative and imaginative, not stale and repetitive. In other words, beware of falling into a rut. Your biggest obstacle will typically be apathy. If your group’s mission is to do nothing more than meet periodically, make it fun and interesting, make it so people want to come and participate. Try new subjects, new venues, new menus, etc. Even if you are on a tight budget, try to make things professional and first class. Change with the times and never be afraid of failure. You won’t always bat 1.000 but you will certainly hit a few out of the park and score a lot of runs.

7. Keep an eye on finances. As officers of the Board, you have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the group’s finances and report on their status. I cannot stress enough the importance of having a well thought-out and itemized budget. Operating without one is simply irresponsible. And when you have a budget, manage according to it; if you don’t have the money allocated, don’t spend it. Obviously, you should also have routine finance reports produced (at least on a monthly basis) showing an opening balance, income, expenses, and a closing balance. Most PC based financial packages can easily do this for you. At the end of the year, perform a review of your finances by an independent party, either a compilation as performed by a CPA or a review by an internal committee. Post the results so the constituency can be assured their money has been properly handled.

8. Run an effective meeting. Nobody wants to attend an inconsequential meeting. Whether it is a weekly/monthly board meeting or an annual meeting, run it professionally. Print up an agenda in advance and stick to it. Start and end on time and maintain order. Got a gavel? Do not hesitate to use it judiciously. Maintain civility and decorum. Allow people to have their say but know when issues are getting out of hand or sidetracked. And do yourself a favor, get a copy of “Robert’s Rules” and study it.

9. Beware of politics. Like it or not, man is a political animal. Politics in a nonprofit group can get uglier than in the corporate world. Some people go on a power trip even in the most trivial of organizations. Try not to lose sight of the fact that this is a volunteer organization and what the mission of the group is. Keep an eye on rumors and confront backstabbers, there is no room for such shenanigans in a nonprofit group. If you are the president, try to maintain an “open door” policy to communicate with your constituents. It is when you close the door that trouble starts to brew. Also, ask yourself the following, “Who serves who?” Does the board serve its constituents, or do the constituents serve the board? If your answer is the latter, than dissent will naturally follow.

10. Maintain control over your vendors. Try to keep a good relationship with those companies and people who either work for or come in contact with your group, particularly lawyers. Always remember who works for whom. I have seen instances where attorneys have taken over nonprofit groups (at a substantial cost I might add). The role of the lawyer is to only offer advice; he or she doesn’t make the decision, you do (the client). One last note on vendors, make sure you maintain a file of all contracts and correspondence with them. Believe me, you’re going to need it when it comes time to sever relations with them. Keep a paper trail.

Bottom-line: run your nonprofit group like a business. Come to think of it, it is a business, at least in the eyes of the State who recognizes you as a legal entity (one that can be penalized and sued). There are those who will naively resist this notion, but like it or not, a nonprofit group is a business. Consider this, what happens when the money runs out?

I mentioned earlier that you might want to hire a management company to perform the administrative detail of your group. To me, this is an admission that the Board is either too lazy or incompetent to perform their duties (or they have more money than they know what to do with). Just remember, it’s not rocket science.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at

timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim’s columns, see: http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim’s THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

Who Serves Who?

July 10, 2011 by TimBryce

Probably the best way to differentiate between a commercial enterprise and a nonprofit organization is by asking, “Who serves who?” Whether it is a small business or a major corporation, the commercial enterprise is primarily concerned with serving its customers. In general, such companies will go to great lengths to keep their customers happy in order to promote repeat business and improve cash flow. They are also fully aware their customers have choices, if they are not satisfied with their product or service there is always someone else waiting to take the business away from them. It’s called the “free enterprise system.”

A nonprofit organization is another beast altogether.

In theory, a nonprofit is supposed to provide a service or product for its constituents. Such people are pooled together primarily due to a common interest of some kind, be it a professional trade group, a homeowners association, a sports club, a fraternal/civic organization, a union, etc. Such organizations are usually legal entities operating under the sanctions of a state government and perhaps a parent organization. Normally, nonprofits are administered by a board of directors which include officers serving for a specific term of duty involving various responsibilities, such as a President, Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary, Committee Chairman, etc. It is not uncommon for people to covet such titles as it looks impressive on a resume and is often used to climb a social ladder. Whereas the intent for the administration of the nonprofit is to serve its constituents, quite often the reverse is implemented whereby the membership is coerced into serving its officers thereby creating a monarchy where one should not exist. As trivial or petty such organizations may appear, there are certain types of people who become drunk with power, probably because they never accomplished anything of substance in their professional lives.

Ideally, in a nonprofit, the officers should be ego-less and ever reminded that such groups are typically volunteer organizations and, as such, are under no obligation to follow orders. True, such groups will undoubtedly have governing documents defining specific duties and responsibilities; regardless, it is a volunteer organization where people participate as it suits them. The last thing a nonprofit needs is a bully or someone exerting his/her will to disrupt the harmony of the group.

Then we come to governmental bodies and agencies, be it at the municipal, county, state, or federal level. Like nonprofits, officers are elected from the constituency and, in theory, they are intended to represent the interests of the citizenry. As government bodies become too massive and complex we tend to become somewhat attached to our officials and less inclined to change them fearing it may hurt the system and services. This, of course, lends itself to the monarchy phenomenon and creates career politicians. If officials are left unchecked, a dictatorship begins to take root representing a genuine threat to freedom and democracy regardless of the institution.

So, what should we do when we find the constituents are serving the officials?

Voting is obviously the first alternative that comes to mind, but people can be rather apathetic and behave like sheep, which officials count on to manage the flock. Brainwashing and information management (aka “spin”) are devices commonly used for such control. Term limits is another alternative, unless it is discovered a one party system has been implemented whereby cronies take turns running an operation for someone else behind the scenes.

Perhaps the best approach though is to privatize government or nonprofit organizations thereby causing administrators to truly work for the people. Such institutions are certainly not new. To illustrate, commercial management companies are proliferating throughout the country to serve homeowner associations (since the officials are too lazy to assume responsibility themselves). Although you have to pay for such service, you can change companies at a moment’s notice. Privatizing government and nonprofit organizations offers one important advantage; since they are run by commercial enterprises, who understand the need for properly serving their customers, we would at least know “who serves who.”

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim’s THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

Transition of Power

June 29, 2011 by TimBryce

I have been actively involved with a wide variety of nonprofit volunteer organizations over the years, everything from professional trade groups, to local sports organizations, homeowner associations, and fraternal/civic organizations. There is one common denominator shared by such groups, namely, membership is dwindling. The idea of participating in a volunteer organization appears to be a foreign concept to young people. They are simply not joining in the numbers they did years ago. I’m not sure why this is, perhaps it is caused by time constraints or maybe just simple apathy. Consequently, such groups are either closing their doors or making do with less, much less.

Inevitably, as fewer younger people join, older members must stay in charge until someone can take their place. If the same people remain in control for too long, the nonprofit becomes prone to stagnation due to the lack of fresh ideas from new blood. Those few younger people who join feel somewhat intimidated by the old guard still in charge. They shouldn’t as the old guard, in most cases, is looking for some relief and are more than willing to pass the torch assuming the youngster is responsible and competent to fulfill the role. Such organizations need true workers, not just someone trying to make a name for himself. The young member, therefore, needs to prove him/herself in order to gain credibility and trust with the old guard. Assuming the young person can do this, the old guard should be wise enough to step aside and allow the young person to assume their duty.

Consider this though, what happens when the young person doesn’t demonstrate they are capable of doing the job, yet expect to move up the officer chain of command; should they move up? It depends. The obvious answer is, No, the person is not ready and shouldn’t advance. In reality, the young person has become dependent on letting the elders perform the work, and is content to let them do so. Under this scenario, if the elders can hold on until someone else can come forward with the right attitude, they should hang on until then. However, if the old guard is growing weary and it appears the youngsters are taking the elders for granted, you might just want to step aside and let the weight of the office fall squarely on their head of the youngster. In other words, they won’t take responsibility until they are forced to do so and when this happens, they will either sink or swim, and this is the danger of such an approach. If the person fails, the organization may very well suffer for it.

So, we basically have a Catch-22 whereby the younger people develop a general distrust of the elders and vice versa and the nonprofit suffers while everyone jockeys for position. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be an easy answer to overcome this problem. Then again, maybe there is, namely “communications.” For any transfer of power there has to be some open communications between the old and the new. They should not be viewed as adversaries as much as allies who think of what is best for the organization overall. The elders should be ready and willing to train their replacements, review policies and procedures with them, along with the various tools and techniques used to fulfill their duties and responsibilities. In turn, the youngsters need to ask a lot of questions. They may very well modify and improve how the job is implemented, but they must first understand the existing system before implementing any changes. Although the elders should monitor the young worker’s activity, they should avoid the temptation of covering for the youngster’s mistakes, otherwise this will create a dependency that is difficult to break. Give the person instruction and advice, but let the younger worker perform the work. It’s not a bad idea to follow-up and review the person’s work as well.

The ideal situation is to appoint younger people as assistants to key officers, thereby learning the roles. After the young person has assumed the role, keep the elder on in an advisory capacity. In other words, one stint as assistant, one stint as the actual officer, and one stint as an adviser. This would greatly facility the transition of power and bring a satisfactory level of conformity to the job. Unfortunately, not enough nonprofit groups do this.

When you discuss the old guard versus the new in nonprofit groups, it can be described as the immovable object meets the irresistible force. The young people think the elders are maintaining a stranglehold on the organization, and the elders think the youngsters are reckless who will ultimately destroy the group. No organization can survive with such deadlock. The two groups must seek common ground for the betterment of the organization overall. One thing is for certain, the old guard cannot do the job forever. At some point they must relinquish control to the younger members who must acclimate into the organization’s culture and assume their responsibilities. If they do not, the organization will slowly grind to a halt. Bottom-line, it is a matter of building trust between young and old and this can only happen through an effective dialog of communications. Only by communicating can we come to understand the strengths and weaknesses of our people.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim’s THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

Suck-Up 101

June 9, 2011 by TimBryce

Brothers – this article is from my consulting practice but I fear we run into such situations now and then in Lodge. Hope you enjoy it. – TB

During our lifetime, we inevitably run into some rather unsavory characters who will wrong, cheat or defraud us. Maybe even worse are people who survive not because they are industrious, but because they are intuitively political. They are commonly referred to as “Suck-Ups,” “Brown Nosers,” “Ass Kissers,” “Yes Men,” and these are some of the kinder descriptors. We’ve seen such people in school, on the playing fields, at work, our places of worship, in our neighborhoods, as well as the volunteer nonprofit organizations we participate in. They’re everywhere and instead of earning their way through life like the rest of us, they’ve learned to develop alliances with those in a position to assist them in their career.

To illustrate, when I was in college years ago I took a class in English Composition. Each week we had to produce articles which would be reviewed by the instructor and the class. The professor was a nice guy who enjoyed a cigar and would smoke one at the head of the class as we reviewed our papers, and in the process it became his icon. You have to remember this was at a time when smoking was allowed indoors, including college campuses. It was a tough class as the professor demanded more and more from us and became sharper in his criticisms of our work which, in hindsight, improved the quality of our compositions. However, we had one classmate who was experiencing difficulties keeping up with the pace and output of the class. One autumn day, as the class began, the instructor lit up his cigar as had become his custom. Suddenly, our struggling classmate produced a cigar and lit it shortly after the instructor began smoking his own. This caught everyone by surprise, including the professor. It was all rather obvious he was trying to develop a connection with the instructor. As the semester went on, he went out of his way to help the professor anyway he could, including laughing at his jokes, and lighting his cigars. He thought he had developed quite a rapport with the professor, but his bubble was burst when the instructor surprised everyone by allowing the class to grade each other for the semester. Most of the class received fair grades, either “A’s” or “B’s” which everyone accepted. The “Suck Up” got an “F.”

Not all “Suck-Ups” receive such poetic justice. Many graduate through the ranks simply by hanging on the coattails of their superiors and live by the mantra, “It’s not what you know, it’s WHO you know.” Such people have a tendency of creating problems with morale, particularly if they are rewarded for something they did not deserve.

In reality, you cannot blame the “Suck-Up” for his/her actions as the fault truly lies at the feet of the superior who allows or even encourages such conduct. In my college example, my professor gave the “Suck-Up” just enough rope to hang himself. Had he not taken the tactic he did, the professor would have lost the respect of the class and would surely have been reported to the ombudsman. Unfortunately, this story is now the exception as opposed to the rule in a lot of organizations where “Suck-Ups” graduate through the ranks faster than more industrious people, probably because a political machine of “Suck-Ups” has been established and only promote from within their own party. There is only three things you can do under such a frustrating scenario, either learn to become a “Suck-Up” yourself, stand and fight the establishment, which you will inevitably lose, or pick up your marbles and find a new game.

I do not have the time or tolerance for “Suck-Ups” or their superiors. They are detrimental to any organization, for profit or otherwise. By promoting only the same like-minded incompetent nincompoops, they accomplish nothing more than perpetuating their madness. As for me, I’ll take my marbles elsewhere.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim’s THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).

Your Management Style

May 25, 2011 by TimBryce

NOTE: I originally wrote this post for my management consulting business, but it is just as valid for those people hoping to become a Worshipful Master of a Lodge. I hope you enjoy it.

I know a young man who was recently promoted to the position of “Project Manager.” This was his first management position and he was naturally a little nervous going into it. Knowing I frequently write on the subject, he asked for my advice as to what to expect. I began by saying management is not for everyone as it represents a leadership position where you become responsible for your subordinates. Some thrive in such a capacity, others prefer being led. I had a friend who was a master machinist and happened to be promoted to supervisor where he would be responsible for five people under him. This distressed him greatly as he worried about their performance. So much so, he developed ulcers and became quite ill. He begged his boss to go back to being a machinist, whereby he quickly regained his health.

Just because you’ve been given the title “Manager” doesn’t mean you’ve suddenly been imbued with certain knowledge. You have to work at it. For example, in the Information Technology industry, it is common to see a successful programmer elevated to analyst, then to project manager, then to I.T. manager. Such a person may have been a great programmer, but that is no qualification for becoming a manager. Not surprising, the Peter Principle is applied whereby the person is elevated to a position above his level of competency and the company suffers for it. In most cases, such I.T. managers have a rather narrow perspective as they tend to think less as managers and more as programmers.

Whenever thrust into the position, a person must develop his/her own unique style of management. Quite often we will try to emulate others we respect, we may also read books and attend seminars to learn management techniques, and solicit advice from our confidants. However, we must realize what works for one person may not for another, and because of this, we have to tailor our strengths and weaknesses to the situation at hand. We will inevitably experiment with different suggestions until we find a comfortable style of management.

There are ultimately three variables dictating our style of management:

Our assigned duties and responsibilities which defines the scope of our management authority, and as such, our mission as manager.
Available resources, both human and machine. The skills and proficiencies of our workers and equipment will play a significant role in the timely completion of work products. For humans we consider experience, performance, and skill set, which includes interpersonal relations (defining our socialization skills). For equipment, we primarily consider its limitations. As my old football coach was fond of saying, “A team is as strong as its weakest player.” If we have weak workers, we will need to improve their skills. If we have limited technology, we may need to consider upgrades. Of course, this depends on the availability of another type of resource, financial.
The time allotted to demonstrate you are achieving your goal. For a single project, you will likely need to demonstrate the project is proceeding on time and within budget. For departmental management you will need to demonstrate it is under control and improving productivity. It is very important you understand the timing variable as it will greatly influence your style.

These three variables define the hand we are dealt; how we play the hand is then up to us. Some will become drunk with power and try to micromanage everything under the persona of Attila the Hun. Some will try to make use of carrot-and-stick techniques to encourage workers to perform better, and still others will allow workers to walk all over them.

As for me, I always had a strong sense of organization and communications. Standardized and reusable methodologies for conducting business are invaluable in terms of defining Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How, all of which improves communications and clearly delineates how work products are to be produced. Unlike micromanagement, I prefer managing from the bottom-up, whereby assignments are clearly defined and employees are then empowered to see the task through to completion themselves. Other than this, I monitor the operation and run interference to overcome obstacles and obstructions. In other words, I believe in spending less time supervising, and more time managing.

The point is, this is a style that works for me. It may or may not work for you. As to my young friend becoming a Project Manager, I admonished him that, until such time as he discovers his own style of management, I recommended he remain flexible, to adapt and adjust accordingly, study others (what works and what doesn’t), and learn more than teach. After all, stye comes with experience. As such, I advised him to learn everything he can about his niche of the business, be fair and honest, and lead by example. Never ask someone to do something you are not prepared to do yourself.

We must never forget human behavior rests at the heart of the science of management. It is not about technology, it is not about numbers, it is about people, which is why we call it “man”agement. Perhaps the best way to define it is “Management is getting people to do what you want, when you want to do it.” And it all begins with your style of management.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Tune into Tim’s THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).