management

Why are Nonprofits Failing?

June 27, 2019 by TimBryce

BRYCE ON MANAGEMENT

– Because we are not dedicated “for the good of the order.”

Click for AUDIO VERSION.
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

Shortly after I wrote a recent article regarding the problems my home owners association was experiencing, I received several notes regarding the problems in other nonprofit groups in my area. This includes fraternal, political, religious, club sports and other home owner groups. I know many of them as I have actively participated in them over the years, but today they all seem to be struggling to keep their heads above water. It appears most, if not all, are in a self-destruct mode, which caused me to wonder why.

Let’s put our cards on the table; the biggest problem with most nonprofits is they are run by nice people, who mean well, but haven’t a clue as to what they are doing. Many of these offices come with a fancy title, but offer little in terms of insight for performing the work. Very few provide training in how to run a nonprofit effectively. There are some state courses describing pertinent rules and regulations to be observed, but none to my knowledge in terms of how to actually lead and manage. Consequently, nonprofits flounder due to ineffective leadership, causing meetings to become chaotic, financial reports to be prepared with errors, and the attitude of the general membership suffers, causing a decline, all because it is well known management is incompetent. Even worse, stories of embezzlement and gross negligence have become common.

People who serve on the Board of Directors for nonprofits should only do so “for the good of the order,” meaning it has more to do with the overall group and less about the individual. In the early days of our country, the Congress consisted of representatives from farms and other businesses who took turns serving, and at the end of their term, were anxious to return home and tend to their farm or business. There was no thought of lifetime service as there is today. They came, they performed the nation’s business “for the good of the order,” and returned home. This simply is not so anymore.

Today we have people who serve only to fuel their ego or career. There are those who take on a position to give themselves visibility to promote their products and/or services. Of course, the membership has no interest in this, yet the individual persists in his/her agenda. Then there are others who look to add a feather in their cap which will look good on a resume. In Freemasonry, we call this “chasing aprons,” meaning they are actively pursuing fancy Masonic aprons and titles. Most of these people never accomplished much in life and thrive on the adulation associated with such recognition. I have always been of the opinion that such people should be given their apron, then get them out of the way so they do not impede progress.

Such conduct results in what today is called an “Ineptocracy,” an incompetent ruling government where the least capable are elected to positions of authority. Quite often, this is done not because the person has exhibited any special talent, but rather there is nobody willing to serve or, perhaps worse, “it’s his/her turn” to preside. Not surprising, people quite often rise above their level of competency (aka, “The Peter Principle”). This does a disservice to both the organization and the person as well. When a person has risen above their level of competency, it will become obvious to others and will likely affect morale.

Working “for the good of the order,” means you believe in the virtues of the group, that it serves a useful purpose, and that you possess something to help the group, be it a specific talent or you are willing to work in any capacity. This is an important point. If you are unwilling to get your hands dirty, you should not be serving on a Board of Directors. It is like the old saying, “talk is cheap.” The effort of ALL members of the board are required in order to be successful. It is one thing to offer advice, quite another to see it through to completion.

There is one other cause for failure, that people believe management is not “cool.” Translation: a person lacks the discipline, organization, and structure to effectively lead people and hold them accountable. This normally results in either one person doing all the work so others are not burdened, but more likely, everything falls through the cracks and chaos ensues.

Whoever leads a nonprofit, must set the proper tone from the beginning, including the “5-W’s and H,” meaning “Who” is assigned to “What” work, “When” and “Where” it must be performed and “Why.” As to “How,” there may be standard protocols, tools and techniques to be followed, but it may be time to upgrade them. This should be followed by a prioritized list of objectives for the nonprofit to pursue in the operating year.

This brings up an important point, I am a strong proponent of “Managing from the Bottom-Up,” meaning assign responsibility, train accordingly, and get out of their way. Unless there are specific time constraints requiring urgency, it is not necessary to micromanage everything. Most nonprofits are volunteer organizations, and as such, people typically want to go about their jobs without Attila the Hun breathing down their necks.

“Managing from the bottom-up” also includes the formation and empowerment of committees to perform specific functions, such as reviewing finances, planning social affairs, membership and programming, property maintenance, or special projects. By building legitimate committees, you are cultivating people to succeed to the Board over time. This is why they must be allowed to speak and think for themselves.

As I have said repetitively over the years, running a nonprofit organization doesn’t require rocket science. Actually, in most cases, it is quite simple. You need simple and responsible management; someone who knows the governing docs, Robert’s Rules of Order, and knows how to write an agenda and use a gavel. It is not necessary for the leader to have all the answers, but how to formulate the answers with the rest of the board.

One last responsibility the leader must master is to “do yourself out of a job.” Your tenure is typically brief, such as a year or two. Before you leave though, it is essential you have taught the Board to carry on without you. This is actually an on-going process beginning on the first day of your tenure. Take plenty of notes, perhaps a log of your activities, but also create or update checklists, job descriptions, governing docs (e.g., bylaws), and technical “how to” procedures.

The chaos within nonprofit groups these days has gotten worse because the leaders have either forgotten the basics of management or were never trained to begin with, or maybe worse, they’re in it for the wrong reasons, such as accolades. It is like they have come down with a bad case of “The Stupids.” All of this is so unnecessary. We must always remember, we are there to serve for “the good of the order,” and no other reason.

Maybe I should give a class “for the good of the order.” Let me know if you are interested.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Don’t forget my new book, “Tim’s Senior Moments” now available in Printed and eBook form.

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

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 40 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb1557@gmail.com

For Tim’s columns, see: timbryce.com

Listen to Tim on WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; Or tune-in to Tim’s channel on YouTube. Click for TIM’S LIBRARY OF AUDIO CLIPS.

Failing to Act

June 13, 2017 by TimBryce

It goes well beyond insanity.

One of my favorite quotes from Albert Einstein is his definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I’m afraid we see this too often, be it in companies, government or the general public. In other words, there is a tendency for people to maintain the status quo even if it doesn’t produce beneficial results, or even if it is counter productive.

In Europe, following a terrorist attack, we commonly see a government official say afterwards what a hideous crime this was, that security levels are being heightened, and the public should remain calm and not pass judgement on any cultural group. It has become a common script, but for some reason it doesn’t seem to deter terrorists. In other words, nothing changes.

Like so many nonprofit organizations these days, I know of a local group who year after year has been losing membership at a rate of about 1,500 members a year. Over the last fifteen years, it has declined a whopping 37%. Members are seeking answers to reverse this, but the leadership of the group has yet to properly address the problem. Instead, they keep asking for more money from its dwindling membership. Again, nothing changes.

In the world of Information Technology, companies commonly rush off to program a solution before they even understand the business systems problem. Consequently, developers devise a quick and dirty solution to the wrong problem, projects are late and over budget, and end-users lose confidence in I.T. If we built bridges the same way we build systems in this country, this would be a nation run by ferryboats. Interestingly, developers are aware this approach doesn’t work but lament, “We never have enough time to do things right.” Translation: “We have plenty of time to do things wrong.” Once again, nothing changes.

I’m sure we can all think of some similar scenarios from our walks through life, be it in school, on the ball fields, our place of work, in stores, in our neighborhoods, just about everywhere.

I tend to believe a lot of this occurs simply because we have trouble focusing on the proper problem, that it is less painful to take the easiest way out. Instead of going for a touchdown, we settle for a field goal instead.

Repeating the same mistake in the face of reality confirms Einstein’s definition. It’s more than insanity though, it is reckless and irresponsible behavior on the part of management. Changing the status quo is a difficult task, something that should only be charged to someone sensitive to problems and realize it is time to change. What is needed is political courage to make the hard decision, which will likely be unpopular until proven successful. I am certainly not someone who believes in change for the sake of change, but if there is undeniable evidence the status quo is not producing positive results, by God, somebody better get off their duff and do something about it before it results in irreparable harm.

Somehow I am reminded of another quote I am fond of, this from President (and PGM) Andrew Jackson, “Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.”

Keep the Faith!

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

Tim Bryce is a freelance writer and mangement consultant in the Tampa Bay area of Florida.

For Tim’s columns, see: timbryce.com

Also read Tim’s columns in the THE HUFFINGTON POST

Bryce’s Masonic Planning Seminar

December 2, 2015 by TimBryce

I first wrote this article for FreemasonInformation.com back on March 11th, 2007. We tried it in my own Lodge shortly thereafter with remarkable results. The Craft was able to voice their opinions in a controlled environment, thereby stimulating participation and attendance, and helped officers adjust their plans for the Lodge. I hope you find this as beneficial as we did. This article is also included in my book, The Freethinking Freemason – Collected Masonic Works of Tim Bryce.

Shapeth Up and Geteth thy Act Together.

From time to time I get asked to speak on a variety of subjects pertaining to Freemasonry (my personal favorite is to talk on subjects related to “True Masonry”). I also hear from a lot of frustrated Brothers who want their Lodges to finally address the true problems they are faced with as opposed to passing the buck another year (and to another corps of officers). To this end, I offer the following planning seminar you can implement yourself (after all, I can’t be everywhere). I have used a similar format for business meetings and seminars over the years.

For this type of session, the moderator is more of a facilitator as opposed to preaching his own personal points of view. The intent is to stimulate thought in terms of ways of solving Masonic problems as a collective whole, engage the group and overcome apathy. As such, it is primarily intended for a single Lodge, but could easily be applied to larger groups, such as districts, zones, etc. Chapters of allied and appendant Masonic bodies might also find this applicable as well.

Critical to success is the right venue: this is something that cannot be performed in a couple of minutes, but rather as a special meeting, either at a called communications, or perhaps a special after-breakfast, lunch, or dinner session. Whatever venue you select, the session should be properly promoted in order to get the group dynamics you want. For example, you may want to bill this as a brainstorming workshop, a Lodge conference, a think tank, or whatever to attract both the workers and the casual sideliners of the Lodge. Again, this session is geared to force the participants to think and hopefully act.

Setup

Ideally, this should be conducted as a roundtable discussion so the participants can see one and other, but a classroom or Lodge room setting will also work. The moderator (facilitator) will be summarizing the results for all to see and, as such, use either a blackboard or flip chart, or perhaps an overhead projector and screen. In addition to the moderator, he will need an assistant to help tabulate the paperwork.

A sign-in sheet is also required, for people to PRINT their names, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses. This will become important later on when asking for volunteers. Five small slips of paper (index card size) and pencils should be provided to each participant.

Selecting the moderator is important. Although an elder from the Lodge can perform this duty, perhaps an outside Brother who is unbiased may be more suitable (which is where I come in). I do not recommend a sitting Lodge officer to lead the session as he may influence the outcome; nor do I recommend a sitting Grand Lodge officer, such as a District Deputy/Inspector, as they represent the interests of the Grand Lodge and not the Craft Lodge. Ultimately, the person selected as moderator must be someone the Lodge respects, trusts, and cannot be intimidated or browbeaten.

Now for the actual seminar itself:

Introduction

As with all great and important undertakings, begin the meeting with a blessing to deity and a pledge to the flag. Such formality sets the tone for the meeting.

The moderator should be introduced by the Worshipful Master, along with an explanation of his Masonic background. The moderator then explains his role as facilitator, not teacher. Basically, the moderator is there to lead the discussion, govern the meeting, and summarize results; nothing more.

Next, the moderator describes the purpose of the seminar which is to collectively brainstorm to find new and imaginative ways to improve the Lodge (with the keyword being “collectively”). Stress the need for participants to express their opinions candidly and openly; all suggestions are welcome and no idea should be considered irrelevant. But it should be made clear to the attendees that this will be the time to express their concerns over the direction of the lodge (time to speak up or shut up). Discourse should be conducted Masonically (respectfully and professionally). It is strongly suggested the moderator govern by gavel. Please keep sidebar discussions to a minimal and, ask attendees to stand up when addressing the group, not to ramble and get to the point.

The seminar is structured in a particular way. Without structure, the meeting could easily get out of control quickly and be counterproductive. Basically, attendees will be given small slips of paper where they will be asked to answer specific questions. Their answers should be brief. Attendees will then share their answers with the group and the moderator will draft a summary answer for each question which the group will vote to accept (majority rule).

Questions

Attendees should prepare brief answers to the following questions. Please note, these questions should be asked one at a time (not all at once).

What Does Freemasonry Mean to you on a Personal Level?

This first question is a good icebreaker and the answers may be somewhat startling to attendees.

Typical answers include:

Brotherhood
Camaraderie
Networking
Community Service
Support Network
Education
Morality
etc.

More than anything, this question is designed to get the attendees to open up a bit and start thinking. It also gives them a framework for answering the remaining questions candidly and honestly.

Have each Brother read his answer aloud and afford him an opportunity to briefly explain himself.

Devise a summary answer the group can agree to on a consensus basis (vote to accept it).

Provide a Brief Definition of What Freemasonry Is

Have each Brother read his answer aloud and afford him an opportunity to briefly explain himself.

Here you will start to see how the Lodge perceives Freemasonry, right or wrong.

You’ll hear answers like:

Club
Nonprofit group
Fraternity
Society of friends and Brothers,
etc.

As moderator, you are trying to define the Lodge’s focus. Ask attendees to clarify their responses if necessary.

As moderator, allow some dialog here for attendees to articulate their answers. It is important to arrive at a precise definition. This is also useful to clear up some misconceptions about what Freemasonry is (and isn’t). You can also utilize the free ebook What is Freemasonry? to stimulate the discussion.

Devise a summary answer the group can agree to on a consensus basis (vote to accept it).

Provide a Brief Definition of the Purpose of a Masonic Lodge

This is a good follow-up question to the last. Many people take their Lodge for granted and do not think about its purpose. There will be those who feel a Lodge is nothing more than a social venue, others will see it as a meeting place (if so, “What kind of meetings?”), and yet others believe it is intended to propagate the philosophy of the fraternity. In reality, there is no “right” answer. Again, it comes down to the perception of the Lodge.

One clever question the moderator can pose here is, “Suppose you didn’t have this Lodge building; would you still be a Masonic Lodge and, if so, what would your activities include?” This, of course, is intended to get the attendees to think beyond the physical implementation of the Lodge and focus on its purpose.

Devise a summary answer the group can agree to on a consensus basis (vote to accept it).

What are the Three Highest Priorities Facing your lodge Today?

Now that we have defined what Freemasonry and a Masonic Lodge is, we can now concentrate on establishing the top priorities of the Lodge. Inevitably, this will lead to an interesting dialog of the problems of the day, but as moderator, encourage them to think beyond problems but to also consider opportunities. Also, try to differentiate between problems and symptoms. In many cases, people confuse the two. Your intent is to properly define true problems.

Inevitably, you will hear things such as: membership, harmony, politics, finances, maintenance of the Lodge building, Masonic education, administrative concerns, relations with Grand Lodge, etc. In fact, you may develop a long laundry list of problems/opportunities to be addressed. The hard part will be to force the group to agree on the top three priorities.

Devise a summary answer the group can agree to on a consensus basis (vote to accept it).

What Should be Done to Address these Priorities?

After the top three priorities have been established, you are now asking the attendees to devise a strategy to address them. At this point, do not try to solve the problem definitively; by doing so, you may end up wasting a lot of time. Instead, your intention is to simply set the wheels in motion (such as establishing a committee to address the priority). Also, do not put the full burden on the Lodge officers to implement the strategy but, rather, encourage group participation as well.

Devise a summary answer the group can agree to on a consensus basis (vote to accept it).

Who is Willing to Stand Up and Make this Happen?

This final question sounds rather simple but such histrionics are useful for applying peer pressure on the attendees to literally get off of their duffs. Inevitably, all of the attendees will stand in support of the conclusions (after all, they wrote it). But now and then you will find a couple of stick-in-the-muds who refuse to stand. This is rare but in this event, the Lodge officers should meet with the individual separately to determine what problem, if any, the person may have.

Conclusion

Distribute a critique sheet to all attendees at the end of the meeting to evaluate the seminar. Keep it simple and to the point; for example:

What was the MOST VALUABLE part of the seminar?
What was the LEAST VALUABLE part of the seminar?
Grade the Moderator’s performance (1-high to 5-low).
Would you recommend this seminar to other Lodges? (Yes/No)
Other comments and observations.
Provide room for their Name.

The critique sheets should be reviewed by the Moderator and pertinent Lodge officers, particularly the Worshipful Master.

The Moderator’s final task is to write a follow-up report for the Lodge Officers which summarizes the five questions, and allows the Moderator to add any pertinent concluding comments and observations. The answers produced by this seminar may very well be an eye-opener to the Lodge officers who may be operating and leading the Lodge along a different path. This seminar will either reaffirm the Lodge is going in their direction or that a new course should be charted. The officers would be wise to heed the report as it represents the perceptions of the Lodge overall and not just a couple of people. Nonetheless, the Worshipful Master will steer the Lodge as he sees fit. However, should he decide to move the Lodge in a totally different direction, he should recognize he may not have the support and cooperation of the Craft. Following the seminar, the Lodge officers would be well advised to do some soul-searching; should they continue on their current path without the support of the Craft or go in a new direction?

Bottom Line

This seminar is useful for establishing common ground on the problems and opportunities facing the Lodge and how to best address them. As humans, we tend to have different perceptions and interpretations of a problem. Seminars such as this are intended to clearly define the problems in terms all can understand and accept, thereby providing the means for getting everyone to row in the same direction. Further, it sends a message to the Craft that their voice is not irrelevant and that everyone has a role to play. If people believe their voice is heard, they will be more inclined to cooperate and work. As such, apathy is thwarted and teamwork promoted. In other words, we can finally get people “who can best work and best agree.”

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&JB Investment Company(M&JB) 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: timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Listen to Tim on WJTN-AM (News Talk 1240) “The Town Square” with host John Siggins (Mon, Wed, Fri, 12:30-3:00pm Eastern); WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; and KIT-AM 1280 in Yakima, Washington “The Morning News” with hosts Dave Ettl & Lance Tormey (weekdays. 6:00-9:00am Pacific). Or tune-in to Tim’s channel on YouTube.

“Win/Win” – the mark of a true Fraternity.

October 27, 2015 by TimBryce

Some Freemasons question why I post management topics in this forum. They find it difficult to understand what can be achieved by writing on such topics. I do so because I believe there are a lot of Freemasons who can learn from the world of management. To illustrate, consider the works of W. Edwards Deming, the famous business consultant. I was fortunate to attend one of his seminars years ago before his passing. Although not a Freemason, Deming pioneered quality control principles through statistical analysis in the early part of the 20th century. Unfortunately, his work was unappreciated in America and, consequently, he applied his talents to help rebuild the industrial complex of postwar Japan. It was only late in life did he receive the recognition of his work in the United States (after Japan became an economic powerhouse). The Deming Award for quality is still coveted in Japan. One of his most famous quotes is, “Quality is everyone’s responsibility.”

One of Deming’s biggest contributions was his philosophy of creating “Win/Win” situations in business. Instead of competition, he preached cooperation; instead of rugged individualism, he preached the need for teamwork. Deming observed people too often create “Win/Lose” situations, whereby one person can only win at the expense of the other party losing. Instead, he recommended the creation of “Win/Win” situations whereby both parties cooperate towards success. To illustrate, he would describe how “Nylon” was created by DuPont, which was actually based on a joint research project between offices in New York (NY) and London (LON), hence the name “NYLON.”

Deming’s philosophy in this regard is very much compatible with our own Bryce’s Law stating, “The only good business relationship is where both parties benefit.” Instead of promoting cutthroat tactics promoting individualism, what is wrong with achieving success through cooperation?

From a Masonic perspective, “Win/Win” is the earmark of a true fraternity, where brother works with brother in such a way as to “who best can work and best agree.” In other words, a spirit of cooperation and teamwork. However, some Masonic Lodges have turned into political asylums where individuals crave titles and aprons as opposed to enjoying harmony within the Craft. The point is, if you experience “Win/Win,” then you are experiencing true fraternity, but if you are experiencing “Win/Lose,” you have nothing more than a good old boys club and realizing one of the main reasons why Freemasonry is experiencing a steady decline.

Thank you Mr. Deming for the insight.

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&JB Investment Company (M&JB) 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:
timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

The Need for Checks and Balances in Nonprofits

February 23, 2015 by TimBryce

Particularly in financial management.
BRYCE ON NONPROFITS

In 2014, a Vancouver Masonic Temple suffered through the embarrassment of an embezzlement of nearly $800,000 by its Treasurer.

The Treasurer belonged to a Building Fund which housed various Masonic Lodges and youth groups. The misappropriation was detected accidentally only when the Temple failed to pay its real estate taxes. Charges were pressed against the Treasurer who was sentenced to three years and seven months in prison, plus ordered to return the stolen money. Unfortunately, the loss of the cash caused the Masons to put the Temple up for sale, and it crippled their charitable activities. The Treasurer got away with it simply by producing falsified Treasurer reports which nobody challenged.

For an institution that is supposed to exemplify morality, such an incident is extremely humiliating.

Unfortunately, Vancouver is not alone as other Masonic institutions in other parts of the world have also suffered such embarrassments over the years. Sadly, the Masons are not alone as other nonprofit groups have also lost funds due to corrupt financial practices. Cases of embezzlement can found in churches, sports clubs (such as youth baseball and football), homeowner associations, and many others. Because such indiscretions are humiliating, and makes for bad public relations, many such incidents are not reported and quietly swept under the rug. Silencing bad publicity is one thing, going without adequate financial resources is quite another.

To overcome such problems, some simple financial controls can be implemented, but few people in nonprofit organizations have the necessary experience, thereby leaving their organizations prone to disaster. Regardless, the officers of any organization have a fiduciary responsibility to their constituents to safeguard the financial resources. Naivete is no excuse for such recklessness. Standard practices should be implemented for discipline and consistency.

First, leaving expenditures and deposits in the hands of one person is dangerous. It is placing total faith in the integrity of one person. Instead, a separate person should initiate the transaction and must bear the person’s signature, thereby formally acknowledging the action. Let’s suppose you use an outside bookkeeping firm to manage your company’s finances; you would want to have such a system in place whereby you, the owner, trigger the payment of expenses and depositing income, not the bookkeeper. So, why not within a nonprofit organization? Even if you direct the bookkeeper to autopay routine expenditures, such as power and water, you should be cognizant of the expense before authorizing payment.

The two person system would ultimately require two separate procedures; the initiator should write and sign some form of voucher ordering the payment of an expense, or the amount of money to be deposited. Each transaction, whether it is a credit or a debit, should be recorded in some form of ledger, be it on paper or in the computer. The second person, presumably the Treasurer, receives the orders from the initiator and acts upon them accordingly using pertinent bank forms or software. The one common denominator between the two people is the Chart of Accounts specifying the different types of income and expense accounts. By using the same Chart of Accounts, the initiator’s books should match those of the Treasurer. The Chart of Accounts can also be tied to the budget, another important report that should be routinely monitored by a third party.

Needless to say, the two sets of books should be managed separately, not by one person. Periodically, the two people should compare the finances and make sure they are synchronized, such as monthly or quarterly. At minimum, the two must be reconciled by the end of the year. This is very much akin to double-entry bookkeeping which was developed by the merchants of Venice in 1200 A.D. and involves separate journal entries. Regardless of its age, it is still a viable technique for managing finances.

This may all sound slightly bureaucratic, but what is the alternative? Vancouver?

Today, there is a push to automate financial management as much as possible. However, do not overlook the power of paper, for two reasons: first, it provides a handy audit trail if something goes awry, and; second, it provides the means to recreate either set of books should some form of disaster occur. I also cannot over emphasize the need for signatures. This one simple act could have helped thwart Vancouver’s humiliation.

If you use computer financial software, and I recommend you do, you should back up the files any time a transaction is recorded. Why so often? Ask yourself, can you afford to forget one transaction?

In summary, Vancouver and other nonprofit embezzlements could have been prevented by:

Establishing a two party system; one to initiate transactions, and one to execute accordingly.
Preparing paper copies of financial transactions and reports to be used as an audit trail and provide a means to recreate reports in case of catastrophe.
Financial reports should be periodically reconciled, preferably monthly.
Backup computer software routinely.

Last but certainly not least, a review of financial resources should be performed at least once a year by a third party, preferably a committee. Such a review examines the procedures people follow when handling money, and checks the financial data using ledgers, bank statements, etc.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Ask Vancouver; they learned it the hard way.

Keep the Faith!

“The Necessity of Lodge Audits” – Nov 6, 2009

“Establishing a Chart of Accounts” – Dec 1, 2006

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&JB Investment Company (M&JB) 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:
timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Reactive Management

March 17, 2014 by TimBryce

BRYCE ON MANAGEMENT

– Why it is easier to be more reactive than proactive.

Americans tend to be more reactive as opposed to proactive in their approach to life. I suspect the reason can be traced back to our Anglo heritage which historically has been hesitant to take decisive action. Consider how slow the British were to suppress the uprisings of its colonies, usually making the wrong decisions in the end. Our history is littered with instances affirming our reactive behavior; e.g., Pearl Harbor, the Battle of the Bulge, the Stock Market crash of 1929, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the Crash of 2008. These disasters could have been avoided if we had heeded warnings and planned accordingly. For example, the destruction of Katrina could have been averted had local politicians heeded the advice of the Corps of Engineers. Pearl Harbor could have been avoided if the military had listened to General Billy Mitchell a whopping 17 years earlier.

There are many reasons for reactive management: laziness, arrogance, apathy, timidity, unwillingness to offend anyone, or plain and simply, it is easier than being proactive. Making difficult decisions is hard work which is why most people procrastinate. Like it or not though, “Not to decide is to decide.” If we do not make the decision ourselves, a decision will be made for us, and probably not to our liking. We see this in such things as making funeral arrangements, divorce, handling troubled children, putting parents in an assisted living facility, making a major financial transaction, evaluating employees, career changes, and terminating employees. People can be slow to react in making such decisions and, by doing so, they inevitably fester and get worse.

I have a friend who has some aging parents entering the twilight of their years. The husband has developed some physical problems restricting his mobility. The wife is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s and is forgetful. They have been married for 60 years but are now finding it difficult to care for each other. Their siblings have encouraged them to sell their house and move into an assisted living facility near one of the children. At first they reluctantly agreed and signed a contract with a realtor, but after reflecting on it, the mother put a halt to it by steadfastly refusing to move. Although the husband’s driving days are coming to an end, the wife believes she can still drive which scares the family as she might take the car for a spin and either get lost or hit someone. As a precaution, the family keeps the car keys hidden.

My friend has tried to reason with them that now is the time to sell the house before one of them suffers a fall, is hospitalized, thereby leaving the other alone. Regardless of his arguments, they refuse to budge. Again, here we see a prime example of reactive management at work. The mother feels particularly comfortable in her home and does not want to leave it. She knows her kitchen, her neighborhood, and her church. However, she is not truly aware of her mental condition and how isolated she really is. Should something happen to the father, which is likely, she would be trapped in the house. In her case, she does not want to deal with reality and accept the fact there is a problem. The father does not want to fight his wife.

We do not like to make a difficult decision. Some managers balk at performing an employee evaluation or terminating employment as they do not want to hurt another person’s feelings. By not addressing such actions, the manager is doing a disservice to both his company and the employee who may very well be unaware a problem exists and, as such, does not take corrective action to improve himself.

Back in Chicago, my father had to terminate an employee. Prior to this, he gave the employee every opportunity to make adjustments and improve himself. He even went so far as to reassign him to other jobs within the company, hoping he would excel in another position. Unfortunately, nothing worked. Finally, he had to let him go. About a year later, my father happened to meet the man downtown. My father was understandably concerned his former employee held a grudge. Remarkably, he didn’t. Instead, he thanked my father for terminating him which forced him to find the correct career path. By taking a proactive approach, my father did what was best for the company and, ultimately, the employee.

Being proactive is much more difficult than being reactive. It requires planning, a conviction of beliefs, and the ability to sell the course of action appropriately. In other words, it requires a mastery of interpersonal relations/communications. These are much needed skills which are typically learned through life experiences. Unfortunately, this is something we cannot teach in business schools.

For my earlier paper, see “Proactive versus Reactive Management.”

For more on Billy Mitchell, see “Pearl Harbor Day.”

Also see, “Firing Employees isn’t for Sissies.”

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&JB Investment Company (M&JB) 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:
timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Listen to Tim on WJTN-AM (News Talk 1240) “The Town Square” with host John Siggins (Mon, Wed, Fri, 12:30-3:00pm Eastern), KIT-AM 1280 in Yakima, Washington “The Morning News” with hosts Dave Ettl & Lance Tormey (weekdays. 6:00-9:00am Pacific), and KGAB-AM (650) of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Or tune-in to Tim’s channel on YouTube.

“Mad” Management

April 16, 2012 by TimBryce

Some management lessons from 1961.

NOTE: This is from my consulting practice, but also has bearing on the management of a Lodge.

One of the reasons AMC’s “Mad Men” television show is so popular is that it tries to authentically depict American attitudes and moods of the early 1960′s, including how business was conducted. Viewers find it fascinating how the Mad Men think, the priorities driving them, and how they interact with employees and customers. Recently, I was going through some of my father’s old papers back when he worked as Product Planning Manager at Remington Rand in New York City, the makers of the UNIVAC computer at the time. In particular, I came across a training manual entitled, “Creative Management Development” from 1961. Evidently it was used as part of a training class to groom managers for the company. Realizing this was from the same period and venue (corporate New York) as “Mad Men” I picked through the manual carefully to see the perspective of management back then.

The manual was rather thick and consisted of several sections featuring different lessons. In particular, I came across a chapter entitled, “Elements of Effective Supervision” which included the following:

“The most effective supervisor is the one who…

Delegates authority
Makes definite assignments and supervises by results
Minimized detailed orders
Uses low pressure
Trains subordinates
Does different work from that done by his subordinates
Spends his time on long-range rather than short-range problems

This is the pattern of what we call general supervision.

As superiors intrude on matters that rightfully should be handled by their subordinates, problems have a tendency to snowball. One subordinate described the situation this way: ‘As long as the boss gives us the right to make our own decisions, we cooperate with him. We report to him all the information he needs to answer to his boss, but the little things we don’t bother him with. But if he doesn’t give us any freedom we can make his life miserable. We can bombard his office with reports on everything we do. We can refuse to make a decision until we talk to him about it. We can stop saving his time by sifting the important from the unimportant and we can keep him on the run.’ “

Each of the seven sections were then explained in greater detail in the manual. The only problem I had between then and now was the distinction of supervisor versus manager. Whereas I tend to see a supervisor as someone working more closely with workers to assure work is performed properly, I tend to see a manager as more as a leader assessing priorities and plotting direction. Although the chapter referred to a “supervisor,” I believe they were actually describing the duties of a “manager.”

For some rather old management advice from over a half century ago, I found it rather refreshing and interesting. It confirms what we’ve been saying for years, that managers need to learn to manage from the bottom-up, not just top-down. Employees should be properly trained, empowered, and allowed to assume responsibility. In other words, managers should manage more and supervise less, which is just the antithesis of today’s micromanagement philosophy.

The management advice from 1961 is every bit as applicable today as it was back then, making it something we should reconsider. Maybe one of the reasons viewers find the “Mad Men” program interesting is because it represents a time when we were more concerned with results as opposed to political correctness. And maybe we wish we could actively participate in such companies as the Sterling Cooper Advertising Agency where Don Draper is the charismatic creative director who knows how to make things happen. Maybe he attended the same training course with my father.

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&JB Investment Company (M&JB) 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:
timbryce.com

Tim is also the Secretary of Dunedin Lodge No. 192 F.& A.M. in Florida.

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.

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.

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).

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).