To Be Titled – Or Not

Are titles really that important?

No, not book titles – job titles. And if so, what do they convey that makes them important? A sense of position or rank in the organization? A sense of authority? Maybe to the holder it is a sense of accomplishment?

Unfortunately, I think the impact of titles has been diluted over the years. Take for instance the financial services industry. How many Vice Presidents do we know who are really account managers. And yet there is the sense within the industry that we won’t pay attention to them unless they have the VP title. And maybe that is true. Positioning in front of the general public can be an important concern.

I recently had a discussion with someone in the non-profit realm who was concerned that a member of the staff was not using the correct title in correspondence. He was reflecting that this individuals rank was lower than the title he was using. And yet at the same time the boss wants to make sure that the staff member is correctly positioned in front of donors. In my mind, much ado about nothing.

That being said, let me offer up these observations:

1. Let the title reflect the work being done.
2. If necessary, let the title position well in front of the public.
3. Let the title provide a sense of rank.
4. Be flexible.
5. Don’t get hung up on the words.

What are your thoughts on job titles? Are they something to get hung up on?

It’s About Choice

I had an experience recently with an online services provider that illustrated the point about providing choice to your client base.

The company supplies a service to charitable organizations that facilitates third-party fundraising – allowing constituents to raise money for charity. We pay the company for an account with branded landing pages and then there is also a charge assessed to each transaction. We have been generally happy with the service though it is maybe not as robust as it could be. We have a large number of individuals who use it to raise money for us while participating in athletic events in particular – including myself.

They recently implemented a change to the way that donations are displayed on the fundraisers’ pages. The page now displays only the “intended donation” rather than the full donation. And here lies the challenge. When a donor makes a gift on a page, they are provided with the option of covering the fee that the company normally charges to the transaction. If the donor chooses to cover that amount, then the only amount shown is the gift amount. So for example, if I make a gift of $25 and chose to cover the fee, the additional $1.92 is not shown on the page. It does however come across to the charity as part of the gift when we download the weekly gift report.

Here is where I think they made the mistake:

1. They assumed that every charity wanted the exact same thing from the software.
2. They assumed that the fee charged to a gift when the donor covers the fee is less of a gift than when the amount is not covered by the donor.
3. They assumed that all charities calculate their fundraising campaigns the same way.
4. In applying the change to active pages (rather than just new pages) they placed the onus on the fundraiser to have to explain to donors why their totals changed.

In today’s world, it is about options and choice. If you don’t make your systems flexible, you lose the ability to effectively serve. You may retain customers who can’t afford to leave but those who can won’t put up with less than effective systems.

Needless to say, we are looking at making a major change.

Tolerance – Or Rather The Lack Of

This morning as I was driving in to work I came to a realization; I’m bored. There’s nothing challenging me at the moment. I might go so far as to say my brain is getting flabby. I can feel it turning to mush. So with some introspection, I realized that I need to make some changes in the way that I work. I have been allowing myself to coast rather than engage.

I don’t normally set new year resolutions. However, in light of my current frame of thought, I figure it is time to set a target. So rather than a resolution, how about a pledge? Here is my pledge for 2012:

I pledge to be intolerant.

Part of the process of coasting through life is becoming tolerant of things as they occur. It happens slowly and insidiously. It becomes easier to just accept good rather than work towards the best.

With that in mind, here are five things I will be intolerant of:

1. The status quo when it makes no sense.
2. Choices that are made because the alternative is too scary.
3. People who speak or act without thinking about the consequences to others.
4. Software that doesn’t do what I need it to do.
5. Inefficient structures.

Who’s with me?

Monsters

I just saw a twitter message that raises a good question – “Are we creating monsters in our workplace?”  Institutionalizing processes often leads to unintended consequences.

In light of the Penn State scandal, I raised a theoretical question with a co-worker.  The scenario goes like this:

If you saw a coworker in your mail processing room open an envelope, remove cash and put it in their pocket what would you do?  Would you assume that they were stealing it?  Then what?  Would you immediately call the police?  After all, it is theft.  And since it involves the mail, it is a federal offense.  

Your institutional processes/procedures probably say something to the effect of – report suspicious behavior to your supervisor.  So you do.  End of the problem as far as you are concerned.  You have done what your institution says to do.

As the supervisor, what do you do?  Someone has told you about a supposed crime they witnessed.  But did they?  Or is it just a personal vendetta that this person has against the supposed perpetrator.  What do you do?  Report it to your supervisor?  Confront the individual?  Then what?

I am not trying to make light of the situation at Penn State.  What reportedly happened there was awful and should have been dealt with immediately and harshly.  What I am pointing to though is that it isn’t as easy as it might seem.  The media likes to editorialize that each person involved should have immediately called the police.  But it really may not be that simple.  In my humble opinion, as I understand the facts as reported, the only person who could have and should have immediately called the police is the person who reportedly saw it happen.  Yes, others up the chain should have eventually.  But I don’t believe that they could have done so immediately.  After all, they were relying on the supposed eye witness of a third party.

So what does this mean for institutions?  How do corporate officers put in place a process that protects the innocent while immediately responding to and dealing with the guilty?  How do we keep from creating monsters in our workplace?

Never having been confronted with a particular situation, it is easy to point fingers.  However, ask yourself the question, “What would I have done?”  Wrestle with that honestly.  I bet you find that the answer is not as simple as it sounds.

The Value Proposition

I heard a statement (third-hand delivery) yesterday that had me chuckling.  It went something like this,  ”We have over 200K followers on Facebook and twitter.  Not a single dollar has been given from this group.”

Do you suppose the person making this statement has missed the point?  Working in a non-profit brings with it some interesting challenges.  Not least of which is the concern about the source of donations.  Unfortunately, this individual, responsible for overall communications, is unable to grasp the value of activity that does not generate directly attributable dollars.   And because of that, is unable to provide a clear vision for how community based activity adds value to the organization outside of the pure dollar effects.

How do you value your social media activity?  Is it an integral part of your communication strategy or is it done because “everyone else is doing it”?

Consider the value proposition of every activity.  Determine how you will ascribe value.  If it doesn’t add value to the organization, don’t do it.

Staff Value

We are used to the old saying, “Our greatest resource is our people.”  You can still see that saying posted on bumper stickers and company tag lines periodically.  I wonder how many organizations actually behave as if that were true?

Common ways to value staff:

• The corner office
• The larger paycheck
• The special bonus check
• More vacation

Or

• More work
• Pat on the back
• New job title
• Change cubicles

Maybe there’s a new way to respect and value your staff.  Have you thought about it?  What ways have you come up with?

What Do You Bring?

An interesting post this morning by Seth Godin on his blog.  You can see it HERE.

When work becomes “just a job” why do you stay?  Security?  Fear?  Lack of motivation?

Maybe it is time to ask yourself, “Why?”  Why am I still here?  Why is this job important?  Why will my coworkers miss me if I leave?  Will my coworkers miss me?

I’ve been on an interesting ride lately and not sure what to make of it.  Working in a non-profit can be both exhilarating and frustrating at the same time.  There’s a “call” to make a difference in the world.  That’s what brought me here.  But what am I bringing to the organization?  And is it valued and needed?  If not, maybe I should take it somewhere else.

It’s more than just doing a good job.  Anyone, with just a little bit of effort, can do that.

What do you bring?

When Too Many Are Involved . . .

Had an interesting experience a few days ago that I thought I would share.  I’m still working through the thought process and haven’t completely decided if I am irritated or just shrugging my shoulders.

We brought in a guy to interview for a development position that we have open.  The position is a bit of a hybrid as it has to work within the development office but also interface with one of the specific ministry areas.  So the interview process is a bit weird to begin with.

The schedule was set for the day with the candidate meeting with different small groups of staff.  Now here is where it got strange.  The first meeting, which I was part of, was set with three of the development team and one person from our HR department.  Doesn’t sound too bad yet.  A couple of opening questions from the HR person.  Not too bad still.  More questions from the HR person.  And more.

And as he kept asking questions, he lead into areas where he really has no expertise and background.  I think overall, the development staff, who will have to work with the candidate, got about three questions in during the hour that we met.

I spoke afterwards with at one of the other development staff in the meeting and he expressed the same frustration.

Some suggestions for interviewing prospective staff:

1. Set up a schedule that make sense, taking into consideration the nature of the position for which the candidate is being interviewed.
2. Compartmentalize.  Allow the working team to meet with the candidate.  If other departmental areas will be meeting with the candidate, do that on their own schedule.
3. Spend adequate time on a debrief afterwards.  Thoroughly discuss strengths and weaknesses that different members of the working team discover.
4. Develop some baseline questions but allow the discussion with the candidate to flow in what I would call “directed natural” conversation.
5. Make sure the staff who are involved in the interview process are appropriate for the level of candidate (i.e.  a receptionist should probably not be involved in the interviewing a vice-president).  That seems like a “duh” statement but you’d be amazed at what some people think is an appropriate 360 interview.

Actually, truth be told, I am a bit annoyed about the process this week.  I realize, in this situation there was much happening behind the scenes that many of us weren’t aware of.  But I hate wasting my time!

The Reality Is . . .

I’ve got to start writing again.  A daily habit.  A competence is built.

I’ve been off here for a long time.  I feel the whithering of the vine.  I think it is time to start observing and interacting in this space once again.  Just maybe there is something useful that will issue forth and be of value to someone.

Rallyfan has returned.

Twitter and Customer Service

Haven’t posted in a long time!  But this was an interesting experience so too good not to share.

Been having internet access troubles at home.  Access provided by Charter Internet.  Got online at work to chat with their customer service.   They obviously have a few things to learn and train their techs on.  Needless to say it was not a good experience.  I was frustrated enough that I tweeted some of the more choice questions and answers that were exchanged.

Here’s where it gets interesting.  Within minutes of my first tweet I get a direct tweet from their U Matter To Charter department asking me to follow so that we could tweet/discuss the situation.  Explained what was happening.  He tested from where he was located and agreed that there was still a problem.  Escalated the tech request.  We had a tech at our house the next afternoon checking things out.  Got it working temporarily.  System went down again over the weekend.  Tweeted directly to support this time (why not since I had his address).  Got quick escalation.  Tech back to the house.  Spent a good bit of time there yesterday.  The technical problem is still not resolved – he’s supposed to be back this morning.  But they are working on it.

What I want to focus on is the use of social media like twitter to resolve customer support issues.  While it should have never gone that far, I commend Charter for having the foresight to troll Twitter to watch for issues occurring.   They took the initiative to see my tweets and respond.  My tweet was not nice.  But when they responded it was very professional and the response was quick.

Now hopefully my access will be restored today.