During a road trip to the Canadian maritime provinces in summer 2017, I embarked on a project to make and send cards constructed of ephemera and cuttings from maps, travel brochures, and advertisements encountered randomly on the journey.
Over the past couple of years I have been slowly getting back into visual arts by taking the occasional course and participating in some projects. Mail art has become a fun way for me to play with visual arts in a social way. Participating in groups and projects gives me just enough social pressure to keep producing even on days when new ideas flag.
My first mail art project was on the theme of memory and both a mailable and handmade envelope were required.
In the not-for-profit and arts world I believe we set ourselves up to be uniquely vulnerable to the pitfalls of ethical systems based on utilitarianism. This is the ethical system in which the “good of the many” always outweighs the “good of the few”, a system that becomes challenged when the means are not ethical in and of themselves. In not-for-profit workplaces we think about “Ends” all the time. Right on the top of all our literature and websites we spell out the “Mission”. We are focused and passionate about the mission of our organizations, whether it is feeding the hungry, housing the homeless or assuring the survival of a classical orchestra.
Into all this passion and energy for achieving worthy goals comes a number of roadblocks that can make us, as non-profit staff and managers, feel that government funders, sponsors, regulatory bodies, are treating us unfairly, stacking the deck against the success of our organization to achieve our mission. Those challenges include: the preference for funding projects and program costs, over needed support for core operations; shifting priorities and programs from governments and foundation funders; narrow program objectives that don’t match the needs of the communities we serve. And some days we feel like if we hear the word “innovation” one more time, we’ll scream. We twist our programs pretzel shaped to try to qualify for those innovation grants when, really, we think that the way we have always done things is probably pretty soundly based on best practices.
Whether we bend the truth a little bit in our funding application to make our planned activity seem like a better fit, or we move expenses in accounting lines to shift expense from administration to program and marketing, we are embarked on a slippery slope. Tensions mount in organizations when doing whatever it takes to get or keep funding pushes staff members beyond their comfort levels.
These are not victimless crimes. Public dollars, the reputations and health of workers, the continuation of programs and services that the public counts on are jeopardized when organizations foster a culture of unethical expediency. Staff members feel helpless in organizations where they are not just asked but required to do unethical things: back-date mail machines to send in applications after funding deadlines, forge a signature because someone is unavailable, spend all their time working on one project that they are not funded to work on and neglect the work they are funded to do (a common way of shifting funds from one program to the other surreptitiously), directly shift funds from one program to another without the funder’s knowledge, invent statistics, report fundraising costs of a special event fundraiser as a “program” cost, report expenses of one project as the expenses of another, double and triple raise project revenues for one pet project while reporting a reasonable budget in each request, over-spending ridiculously on one area. . . all things that have been sanctioned in organizations I have worked for in the past. Yet there is little over-sight of non-profits and whistle-blowers at the staff level often have their careers ruined while they sometimes see the non-profit manager who forced the questionable or outright disgraceful practices be backed up by non-profit boards and even to be recognized with national awards.
Adequate funding of basic operations of non-profits that are operating effectively in the public good will stop the need to fudge program costs to cover operations.
I could say that Boards should stop propping up corrupt leaders but . . . that’s not going to happen. The “friends of X” board is alive and well everywhere. I have come to the conclusion that there needs to be tougher regulatory bodies at the provincial and federal level that will investigate allegations of mismanagement of publicly funded non-profits. Working with very well-managed and ethical non-profits has given me perspective on the insidious harm that unethical non-profits do to workers, funders and programs.
Founder’s syndrome occurs when a founder of an organization is not able to transition leadership style as the organization matures and grows. The founder continues to operate in the same manner as he/she did in founding the organization, seeking to personally manage every aspect of a growing organization.
The strong entrepreneurial personality that developed a new organization may be unskilled at or unwilling to delegate. The tireless worker that was willing to pull all-nighters to get in last-minute grant applications may be unable to schedule work or effectively manage their time. The genius that came up with spontaneous project ideas may not be willing to work on long-range plans or within budget guidelines. All of the affects of founder’s syndrome results in limiting the growth and effectiveness of organizations and often creates toxic environments for workers, artists, clients.
We naturally see more of this in smaller organizations because it is such a strong factor in limiting growth. It is more prevalent in the non-profit sector because while for-profit organizations can be affected by founder’s syndrome, market forces exert limiting pressures on poor leadership. The for-profit company that cannot grow and change often fails while others are forced to change their ways or leadership to remain competitive. By contrast non-profits are less subject to market forces and may have difficulty discerning reasons for organizational stagnation or failures. Non-profits are governed by unpaid community volunteers who may feel unable to pass judgment on the workings of an organization that is outside their area of expertise and where evaluation may be more qualitative than quantitative. Volunteer Board Members customarily spend little or no time observing the day-to-day workings of the organization. They may also be friends of the Founder and so not impartial. They may have been convinced by the Founder that any inquiries about management is “meddling”. Staff and volunteers in the arts and non-profits tend to be very high-minded and mission-driven. This results sometimes in a willingness to tolerate a sick work environment in a mis-guided idea that it is “for the good of the cause”.
Founders alone cannot create an organization with Founder’s Syndrome. It takes a step-by-step, person by person tacit agreement to cede power to the Founder by Board Members who should be providing governance to the organization. It also requires funders, volunteers, staff, colleagues and other stakeholders to decide to continue to support the sick organization or to leave silently. Over the years it there may be numerous loud and clear signals that there is something terribly wrong in the organization but no effective action is taken to address the problem or to provide help to the Founder to assist them in developing a more effective leadership style before they stifle or bring ruin to the organization they founded.
1. There’s a “friends of the founder” Board of Directors. The founder has recruited the Board of Directors him or herself (normal in the initial stage of an organization) and the Board has never taken over authority for recruiting new members themselves based on the needs of the organization. Board members are vetted by the founder and Board Members that try to counter the Founder’s wishes are quickly ejected. The Board sees their role as supporting the work of the founder rather than stewardship of the organization’s Mission and sound governance of the organization’s work and resources.
2. Decision-making within the organization is all controlled by the founder. Staff either don’t know what’s going on or plans suddenly get de-railed by a decision of the founder. Ideas that come from elsewhere than the Founder don’t go very far. Staff become discouraged about offering innovative ideas, stop being pro-active and may even be afraid of the founder.
3. Organizational information such as newsletters and brochures contain a lot of information about the founder: personal letters from the founder to supporters, news of the founder’s awards, achievements, pet projects. Board members and staff seem oddly uninformed about the details of project plans, budgets, and any results or evaluation. Staff cannot articulate processes, statistics or evaluation methods.
4. The founder often talks about “my vision, my program, my goals” rather than “our goals”. When asked about rationale for methods it is not unusual to hear, “we have always done X” or “I believe it is best to do Y”. There is no process for new ideas and methods to be introduced.
5. There is a resistance to any changes that might create a real or perceived loss of control, e.g. a founder that is uncomfortable with technology will resist the implementation of a user-friendly website that a staff member might be able to create and manage because she/he will feel unable to control the content.
6. Information hording can occur because information is power. The more threatened a founder is by a staff member, the less likely the founder will be in sharing information with that staff member.
1. If the Founder recognizes the problem, get them help through professional leadership counselling.
2. If the Founder does not recognize the problem you’ll need buy-in from more than one organizational level to effect change. Without support from Board, Staff, and Funders you will not be likely to succeed. Staff driven efforts alone result in Board backed firings that can ruin careers and even the health of staff members summarily dismissed for the efforts to alert the Board to the dysfunction. Board-driven change processes that lack staff and funder buy-in can result in funding cuts, and/or sabotage at the staff level and ultimately Board fatigue, resignations, replacements. Funder led calls for reform without organizational support can result in financial hits for the organization but no real change. The organization will find new funding partners or fail, but will be unlikely to effect real change to suit a funder unless there is recognition of a problem.
1. Recognize that you are in a very challenging environment and you may not be able to effect change. Go easy on yourself.
2. Consider your options and prepare your exit strategy even before it’s necessary.
3. It is unwise to try to effect change in the organization unless there is a Board initiated effort for organizational change.
4. If you elect to stay in the organization focus on small goals or achievements within your area of responsibility with minimal opportunities for friction with the Founder.
5. If you choose to whistle-blow, be prepared for a very difficult time and possibly lasting career damage. It might be personally advantageous to simply resign.
6. Work within the non-profit sector to promote awareness of this problem and protections for workers.
Michael Crabb reports today in the Toronto Star on “I’m Not the Indian you are thinking about” from Red Sky.
Since I first worked with Sandra and Carlos at Red Sky in 2003 on “Caribou Song” while serving as General Manager at Soundstreams Canada, I have admired their choice in projects and their voice in Canada in dispelling stereotypes about native people.
There is actually a lot of vested interests on both sides in keeping those stereotypes alive but until we move past them we really can’t have understanding nor begin to work together on the social justice problems that we’d all like to see addressed effectively.
The first in a small series on the management art of effective delegation.
When you talk to unhappy employees and ask them what is wrong with their jobs or their relationship with managers, the leading issue is usually poor delegation techniques. In the arts and non-profits we are often working as managers having no business training in supervisory management and as employees we are working with bosses who may be wonderful in their fields but don’t know the first thing about managing people.
Why do so many managers fear and avoid delegation?
Let’s look hard at this fear:
When you feel these fears coming on (and we all have them as managers) remember the gains that will come to you as an effective delegator. You will develop happy, productive employees who not only think for themselves but regard you as an effective mentor and supervisor, someone they can go to for advice without fearing their project will be yanked away from them. You will be enhancing your own reputation and chance of advancement. You’ll free up time for your own innovative, non-routine tasks which require your unique expertise.
Consider this scenario that is acted out in workplaces every day:
You need to leave on time for once because of family plans. It’s busy at work and your boss says, “Well I don’t know about you, but I’ve always been the sort of person who doesn’t watch the clock at work because I prefer to just get the work done”. It stings because your self-image has always been that of a hard-worker but there is nothing in the current situation or workplace that motivates you to stay late. What has changed? Is it you? Is it the job?
Getting to understand your own values helps to answer with confidence about the balance you have between commitments to work and to other parts of your life and what you need in order to give more time to work. As a manager, knowing your employees values helps you negotiate for the flexibility and extra effort you may need for a project.
Understanding what are core expectations for your position is the starting point. While you might have regular work hours, some contracts have language that requires a flexible schedule or extra hours in peak periods. It is only when we are asked to exceed the language in our agreement that we need to consider where our boundaries lie. While we like to give ourselves labels like “dedicated”, healthy individuals have limits about the amount and type of work they are willing to do on their own time and the conditions under which they find it reasonable to put in extra hours. If you don’t know your own priorities you could find yourself agreeing to work you’ll resent or saying “no” to an opportunity that might be congruent with your goals. Neither of these outcomes is good for you or the workplace.
What motivates you to take work home, put in hours over the weekend, or stay late to finish a project? For me I know that I will volunteer to work on projects that involve learning new skills that are congruent with my goals and interests. I’ll also burn the midnight oil for a project that I’m given ownership of that I can add to my resume folder in future. Affirmation goes a long way with me also. Even if there is nothing in it for me, I’ll do extras when I feel appreciated.
As a manager, you need to know what your employees value and use that understanding to motivate appropriately. This is a part of values-based management.
Jerry Silverberg
SAGE CAFE – 166 McCaul (north of Dundas – just around the corner from the AGO)
