Friday, October 14, 2005

Conditions of Ownership

In the Nonprofit Tech sphere, we have heard a lot about total cost of ownership and return on investment -- both of which are critical to understanding how best to introduce and support technology. What we hear less about are "conditions of ownership" -- what I believe it takes to successfully implement and sustain a technology initiative.

In keeping with the spirit of "At the Intersection," I'd like to introduce you to lessons learned about this topic from another field. While blogging, I recently stumbled across Peter Hunter, a British performance improvement consultant working in the oil industry. The bulk of his book Breaking the Mould focuses on his experience improving the performance of a South American oil rig. What he learned about conditions of ownership in the jungles of South America is wholly appropros for those of us helping nonprofits use technology.

Hunter was brought in to improve the time it took this oil rig to do certain things, the details of which involved moving around large pieces of machinery. While some might have expected him to create new policies or change the technology, he attended to "creating conditions of ownership" among those who worked on the rig. Instead of telling those people what to do and what not to do (which had been the primary mode of practice by managers leading up to this point), he focused on generating the respect, pride and responsibility achieved when human beings are empowered to make decisions about how things are done and then he support them in doing so.

When introducing a new technology and telling your staff "this is how we're going to use it," chances are, according to Hunter, that staff will NOT use it. "If people are told what to do, they will stop doing it as soon as they are no longer being told." Instead, he says, "people commit... because they've decided for themselves it is the best thing to do" and "when they decide what to do for themselves, the change is sustained."

This is why it's so important to engage staff -- especially the staff that is going to use the technology you want to introduce -- in the planning and decision-making about its adoption and use. What does this look like? Here's what I distilled from what Hunter had to say:


  • Bring curiosity to your communications with staff about technology planning and use. Instead of reacting with defensiveness or criticism, become curious about what it is that is important to this person. What is it about the issue at hand that most upsets them? Be curious.
  • Ask for suggestions and take those suggestions seriously. Demonstrate that you value their opinion. Never ignore an idea. When asked about improvements at the rig, one oil rigger suggested seat cushions for the 3-hour bus ride to/from the rig. While the manager was tempted to ignore this idea as irrelevant, Hunter pointed out that if he did so, this person-- who might have a major cost-cutting, time-saving idea tomorrow-- would withhold future suggestions because he had evidence that suggestions were ignored. (As it was, a more comfortable ride led to more relaxed, rested people working on the rig.) Therefore, try your hardest to do what they suggest even if the idea is not perfect.
  • If you must say no, explain why.
  • Ask them what went well about a recent change; ask them what they would have done differently. Then support them in owning and implementing those changes, not be telling them what to do, but by having them implement the changes themselves.
  • Provide them with ways to measure their success, to measure the change that they're seeking to make. "If they can see how they're doing, they can take pride in their performance." If they can't see how they're doing, there is no ownership.

Peter Hunter's book described the amazing success achieved when conditions of ownership were present and supported. Prior to his work with them, the owners in this oil rig were about to lose their investment due to poor performance that almost shut down the rig down; instead, this rig became a model of success for other rigs and staff were empowered to introduce, create and sustain new ideas that led to further improvements.

An organization risks wasting its technology investment if it does not build conditions of ownership. Nonprofits don't have the resources of the oil industry to hold them up when they fall. Therefore it's even more important to take "conditions of ownership" seriously.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

What makes a good workshop?

Last week I attended a workshop given by Spitfire Strategies to a number of us who provide workshops to their clients.

In addition to its marketing consulting services, Spitfire leads communications capacity building programs to grantees of some of the larger foundations, and their interest in providing these workshops was to make the workshops given inside those programs more consistent with each other.

Andy Goodman, known for his great work "When Bad Ads Happen to Good Causes" is now writing a soon-to-be published work called "When Bad Presentations Happen to Good Causes" (due out Dec 2005). He extended that research to see what he could find out about what people liked and didn't about workshops. Here's what he learned:

The Fatal Five (i.e., what participants hate THE MOST):

  1. Reading the PowerPoint Slides
  2. Too long, too much information
  3. Lack of interaction
  4. Lifeless presenter
  5. Room & technology problems


Most wanted

  • Clarity
  • Interaction & connection
  • Enthusiasm


Note that if you remove #1 and #5 from the "fatal five" (which Goodman says are completely preventable), that there is a 1:1 match between what participants most want and what they hate the most.

Andy shared a variety of stats and studies by others. A particularly humbling finding (for those of us who present and train) was from a 1978 study of 1300 students and 12 one-hour lectures. They found that attention span dropped dramatically after only fifteen minutes!

Goodman then went on to propose a particular format for a one-hour workshop (which could be extrapolated for workshops of differing lengths):

First off, have an understanding of where your participants are at the time they walk in the room.
Then have an understanding of where you want them to be at the end of the workshop. That's the desired outcome. Not for YOU, the trainer, but for THEM. What's in it for them? What benefits will they experience as a result of taking your workshop?

So if A is where they start, and B is the state they're in when they leave, break up the time between into these chunks:


  • Lightning Strike: a 1-2 minute "gotcha" to grab their attention and bring them into the room. This is particularly important because people tend to make a fixed decision about you in less than seven (that's 7!) seconds.
  • 15-20 minutes on the content that you're providing them (made relevant to their interests or concerns)
  • Interactivity for 10-15 minutes; could be an exercise they do on their own, in pairs, in small groups or all together.
  • 15-20 minutes more content
  • Summary 1-2 minutes.
  • Q & A 5-10 minutes
  • Lightning Strike: a 1-2 minute closing that reiterates the most powerful thing you want them to leave understanding.


When thinking about what to fill your workshop with, he reminded us of the different learning styles that exist, citing Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences. Andy said that therefore, it's ideal to incorporate into your workshop things that will appeal to all learning styles; namely:


  • Logical (quantitative): this is data for the MBTI "S" type, for those of us who love stats, facts and figures
  • Narrational: for those of us who learn best through storytelling
  • Foundational: for those who prefer the broad, the philosophical
  • Experiential: for those of us who learn by doing
  • Aesthetic: for those of us who need to touch things, or hear things. For example, a workshop about coalitions might use the sound of a symphony to describe how diverse instruments (people) can work together to create something of beauty (a successful community outcome).


My big takeaways from this workshop were:

  1. The workshop needs to be designed for the client's agenda (and needs and interests and challenges), not the workskhop leader's.
  2. KISS: Keep It Simple. Less is more. And too much will kill you.
  3. Start with the outcome you want them to take away and build back from there.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Where have I been?

I've been struggling with how to resume this blog in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The posts I'd drafted before 30 August sat unattended, unfinished-- I simply felt they were irrelevant at that moment. And my own attention just could not remain focused on blogging...

In the meantime, so many blogs and lists shifted their attention, too. I have followed many and been moved once again by humanity's ability to show up and help in the face not only of the disaster but also the bureaucratic incompetence riddled throughout our political systems (perhaps because of it).

But I wanted "At the Intersection..." to remain focused on its mission. As I struggled to place my own work in the context of this latest tragedy, I have been moved by those individuals and organizations who have found a clearly defined intersection between their work and a response to Katrina.

For example:

  • OMBWatch has tied their concerns about domestic security and environmental issues into a response to the government's response (or lack thereof)...
  • Katrina's List is network-centric action in an open-source environment-- a collaborative effort by many individuals and organizations to build a central repository and volunteer effort to link all the various "people finder" efforts into one.
  • ASPCA's mission to prevent cruelty to animals extended to the abandoned pets of the gulf coast.
  • A lot of us have been critical of the Department of Homeland Security's response (?) to Katrina (and for good reason), but they supported Working
    Together When the Worst Happens
    , a now painfully relevant publication about nonprofit disaster preparedness produced in June 2005 by the Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington.
  • Nonprofit Quarterly published a few "special edition" articles through it's e-newsletter shortly after Hurrican Katrina hit; It's Time to Mobilize calls for nonprofit organizations-- especially foundations and national infrastructure nonprofits-- to take specific steps to responding to and preventing future disasters.


Where have you found nonprofits and capacity builders creating interesting intersections between their work and the response to Katrina?