A white paper
“Youth Bridge”
03 September 2007
Prepared by James E. Huffman
Ethics and Organizational-architecture Consulting
P.O. Box 996
Fayetteville, AR 72702
james@jhuffman.net
Goal: To assist Youth Bridge in developing a long-term strategy for endowing the future operations of the organization with the ultimate goal of no longer needing to be heavily dependent upon United Way funds and stop-gap fund-raising.
Methodology: Interviews, coffees, luncheons and business/social events, with friends and acquaintances in the business, financial and professional communities in Northwest Arkansas.
Objectives:
Community perspectives: Over the timeframe of seven (7) months I visited with, and/or contacted with information, in excess of two hundred (200) people who were either a member of a Chamber of Commerce, a Rotary Club, or one of the professional organizations to which I belong here in northwest Arkansas. Many of the individuals were members of both Rotary and the Chamber in the communities here in northwest Arkansas.
I had extensive visits with forty-seven (47) individuals, each of whom had the capability to be of considerable help to Youth Bridge in building an endowment. The majority of these folks have had a long history with United Way in various capacities - ‘executives on loan,’ or members of United Way committees, or Pillars & other levels of large donors.
I was amazed at the immediate and consistent cynicism I faced from so many of these well-established and successful business and professional people in Northwest Arkansas when asked their opinion and perspective on Youth Bridge and its possibilities of establishing an endowment.
It became apparent that Youth Bridge was far from being ‘top-of-mind’ in terms of agencies dealing with a) at-risk youth or b) substance abuse issues. Despite some confusion in understanding the differences in what the various agencies do – the perception, which constitutes ‘top-of-mind’ - were:
There was a general skepticism (from slightly more than half of the interviewee’s) to the thought that Youth Bridge would survive to even be able to build an endowment. There were comments from several past allocations committee members such as the following:
One insight came from a response of an affluent and generous professional who said, “Jim, I want my giving to be associated with an organization that inspires confidence and brings a sense of well-being, such as Ozark Guidance. Youth Bridge will always be seen as inefficient, struggling, and perhaps inept.”
The negatives from those being interviewed were all related to organizational leadership.
Among those who were sympathetic to Youth Bridge and its mission were several who had questions about whether there was any real direction among the leadership or if Youth Bridge was “just continuing to chase its own tail, trying to find something to do so they can get more grants.”
My greatest ‘success’ was in gaining the ear of trust officers. Among the trust officers, stock brokers and financial planners, there was what seemed to be a genuine interest in the work of Youth Bridge. Some of them had stories of friends whose ‘kid was at Youth Bridge.’
Almost without exception, the most favorable response from those being interviewed was their perception of Youth Bridge “being there” for kids in trouble.
- Personal Observation on the Endowment effort: It is my thought that if Youth Bridge were to ever (I tried, without success, to get this done for most of the seven months I was actively involved) establish brokerage accounts with leading brokerages in NW Arkansas, there would be real opportunities for stock transfers (for tax abatement purposes) by quite a few folks.
- Personal Observations On Organizational-architecture: Youth Bridge has more meetings than any other organization I have observed to this point in my thirty-seven (37) year career.
In analyzing for efficacy and efficiency, I didn’t see any substantive difference between the Executive Director’s approach to Administrative Team meetings and Senior Supervisor’s meetings.
The effect is, in my opinion, that there is no Administrative Team. The basis of that perception comes, in part, from the Executive Director
The agendas frequently will be 40 to 50 pages in length for a meeting that will occur every other week. Many pages are relatively unchanged from the previous meeting. The action points are often re-discussed without any authorization for implementation or change.
Dissenting voices are not affirmed but rather treated as uninformed or impractical. The attitude of leadership is lament and distress. The infrequent commendation is followed by a ‘gloom’ report or anticipation of a dire event.
In a seven month timeframe of attending meetings which typically lasted 2-4 hours, I never left one feeling inspired, encouraged, or hopeful.
I observed that when an action is taken by the Executive Director, he will meet individually with AdminTeam members to explain the event and action, rather than dealing with those actions in a team environment. This segregation allows for various ‘understandings’ as to blame assessment and mechanisms for conflict resolution. It also discourages open dialogue and the ‘think tanking’ of ideas.
This style of management is further reflected in the insistence upon using a ‘Bell curve’ to establish pay raises in conjunction with annual employee evaluations with it being stressed that the same number of employees will of necessity receive no raise in order for an equal number to receive up to a seven (7) percent raise. ‘Bell curve’ distributions are for organizations that aren’t actively and positively managed. It fits a management philosophy that uses diminishments (perceived threat) rather than developments (perceived value) in employee training and retention. If an employee is actively managed they will either come up to performance standards or will be gone from the organization long before time for the annual evaluation.
The outcome of NOT utilizing active and positive management is the tenuring and advancement of status quo employees. To bring a competent and promising employee to the next level requires an open and flexible organizational architecture that cultivates openness and rewards employees for their criticism of the system.
Positive change comes from listening to someone who doesn’t like or appreciate the way things are currently being done. Those critics should be valued as potential innovators. In valuing an employee’s opinion they are given ‘ownership’ in the process.
I found employees at YB who had risen through the ranks to salaried, supervisory levels who were not qualified for their positions. This is evidence of crisis management.
- Personal observations on the position of the Director of Development: Youth Bridge wants an events coordinator – not a development person.
While the salary wasn’t of particular concern to me, I was told by the Executive Director that the range for a Director of Development was about $36,000. My response was, “Whatever.” I knew that the published range for this region puts $36,000 in the ballpark for an events coordinator, while a Director of Development has a range north of $70k. The relevance is in the expectation.
At this point Youth Bridge probably would be better served in meeting their own expectations of ‘stop-gap’ funding by hiring a young, high-energy ‘events planner’ rather than attempting to hire someone capable of actual endowment development for the current salary.
- Personal philosophical reflections on Youth Bridge: I believe that Youth Bridge needs to ‘close the back door’ financially by rethinking everything they are doing and where they are doing it.
They need to have a cohesive message for ‘branding’ that goes beyond a slogan. YB should evaluate an ethical question as to whether they are really providing services adequate for meeting needs in all of the eight counties of their service area.
The board seems to be philosophically attuned to ‘stop-gap’ funding. The typical question by a board member about projected program shortfalls was generally, “Can you raise this money?” Perhaps the questions should be along the line of, “Is this a program that we feel is mandated by our mission or by public expectation?” Or, “Is there another way we can reach more clients than this particular program without going over anticipated income?”
There doesn’t seem to be any real impetus toward developing agency policy that would streamline programming to tightly fit the public’s perception of Youth Bridge’s mission and role with the priority being given to maximizing numbers of clients to dollars expended while meeting the contractual expectations of the courts and State.
The real crisis I see at Youth Bridge is one of confusion between the roles of leadership and management.
The following quotes come from current leaders in the field of leadership development:
It seems that the Executive Director is uncomfortable relinquishing the role of managing Youth Bridge and frequently steps in against the advice and direction of the Administrative Team. To use Steven Covey’s analogy, we would find Youth Bridge AdminTeam members sometimes on the ladder or atop the wall when the Executive Director decided to move the ladder. In those situations, the AdminTeam would believe the decision had been reached as to where the ladder should be placed only to discover a month later that the Executive Director didn’t believe a decision had ever been made, or disagreed with the decision and didn’t communicate his veto.
If this is the desired organizational architecture for Youth Bridge, then the Administrative Team should be dissolved with there being no level of separation between the Executive Director and Senior Supervisors.
This could be an effective way of management and would save some salary budget. However, it would leave the organization without true leadership.
Corporate leadership cannot be administered by someone who is also the active, hands-on, day-to-day manager of the organization. In that situation leadership is sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
The leadership role requires a direction molded by the consensus of the team charged with such roles. At that point they have to sound a clear and certain trumpet that projects the direction without ambiguity. Then let those who manage – manage.