Any leader in an organisation, or entrepreneur has to engage in interactions with others in order to get a business going or keep it running. The entrepreneur or leader may have clear goals in mind, or may be in the process of shaping up his or her intentions, exploring different options and potential paths. Either way, it is through interactions with others that these plans take shape and are brought to fruition. The others that the entrepreneur is interacting with have their own intentions, goals and plans. The entrepreneur has to respond to these different goals and intentions, as they emerge in the course of these interactions with others.

Some of these interactions will take place during meetings that might be quite formal and have agendas that are known in advance, written down and followed quite closely during the meeting. Other important interactions will take place much more informally – sometimes in response to an unexpected opportunity, a chance meeting or as a result of a casual conversation over coffee. It is important for leaders and entrepreneurs to be looking for such opportunities and paying attention to what is going on.

A colleague (Diana Jones) told me the other day that there is quite a lot of interest in so-called agendaless meetings. Rightly so, in my opinion, because most interaction does take place in agendaless meetings, in more informal settings, and through casual conversation during which no formal agenda is ever put together.

But it would be for many people working in organisations, quite risky to get together a group of senior people to meet without having a formal agenda. At the same time, many would find this idea appealing, recognising the opportunity for generating ideas, relatively free flow of information and learning what people really think.

In such meetings, the traditional chairing skills and formal meeting procedure would not be very useful. What is important in such meetings is facilitation, such as making sure everyone has the opportunity to speak, handling conflict productively when it arises, listening to others, expressing your point of view, noticing the patterning of the conversation especially when something new happens, finding ways to take advantage of unexpected opportunities that arise.

Such informal "agendaless" meetings are given far less prominence in the leadership literature compared to the weight placed on presenting and chairing at meetings. This is somewhat strange given that, although leaders and entrepreneurs will have to chair formal meetings with agendas and follow meeting procedure, the bulk of their interactions take place outside such formal settings. And the formality of such settings can reduce the range of acceptable contributions that people make to the meeting.

If you are trying to generate new ideas, innovation or creativity, you actually want to stimulate a range of diverse input, rather than reducing the kinds of contributions that people make through formalising them.

Therefore, as a leader or entrepreneur, do pay attention to the casual conversations you are part of, and recognise how important they are to your results as a leader or entrepreneur. And consider convening some group interactions as "agendaless" meetings to see how you go. Of course, the term "agendaless" refers only to the lack of a formal agenda. There is no such thing as a truly "agendaless" meeting because all the participants will have their own intentions, interests and goals (or agendas) that they want to pursue. This comes with the territory of being a human working in an organisation.

Having a formal agenda doesn’t do away with the goals, interests and intentions of the participants. Such goals, interests and intentions of the participants are unlikely to make it onto the formal agenda of a meeting anyway.

To find more posts on this blog about formal and informal meetings, click here.

It has long been thought that it takes a certain kind of person to come up with new ideas. The tortured artist mining the depths of an extraordinary imagination or artistic vision is one instance of this. Another is the model found in advertising agencies where the "creatives" are responsible for coming up with ideas according to the briefs developed and sold by the "suits".

So creative ideas have commonly been considered to be the domain of certain individuals who have a predisposition to creativity. For example, it is said that Einstein dreamt that he was riding a wave of light and this was a key part of his theory of relatively. Or Archimedes sitting in his bath shouting "eureka" when he realised his body mass was displacing the water. Or Newton coming up with the theory of gravity after being hit on the head while sitting under an apple tree.

While some individuals undoubtedly have greater facility for creativity than others, this does not reveal much about how it comes about that these new ideas are generated, apart from some mysterious faculty possessed by these creative people and not by others.

In studies of complexity, computer agents are programmed to interact with each other, over and over again. The computer can model countless iterations of populations of agents interacting with each other, which in the real world would take years or centuries to study. For example, patterns resembling the flocking of birds or the swarming of bees are able to be replicated, as are models of the rise and fall of populations of different species, as some species (i.e. types of agents) become populous and dominant for periods of time, often long periods of time, before they wane and die away. These patterns very much resemble the rise and fall of civilisations like the Greeks, Romans and even the British empire.

One of the most useful and interesting applications of this computer modeling of the complexity emerging from myriad interactions like this, is that the patterns that arise in the populations only change if the agents are different from each other. If the agents are the same, then the patterns repeat themselves. It is only if the agents are different from each other that new patterns emerge.

This is to suggest that it is from the interaction of diverse agents that novelty arises. Innovation or newness in these patterns, then, could be said to be a property of the interaction of diverse agents itself.
 

This provides an explanation for the innovative potential of multi-disciplinary teams, as long as the differences can be handled in ways that don’t blow the team apart through conflict.

This suggests that if you are an entrepreneur wanting to generate a new idea or establish or grow a business, you would do well to seek out interactions with others who are different from you in their backgrounds, professional history, experience, professional discipline, and approach. Seek mentors, directors and investors who think differently from you and have different world views. Seek employees who likewise have different backgrounds from you.

As an entrepreneur, it is from these multiple interactions and discussions you have with diverse others that you will generate new understanding and ideas that you can use to grow your business.

Much thinking about entrepreneurship focuses on the originality of the idea, and there are certainly plenty of examples of inventors or people with original ideas who create successful businesses.

For example, I am quite excited about the guy who has invented a jet pack that allows personal flight and am looking forward to the Jetson-age type of travel this might allow – no more traffic jams! Please hurry up and get this idea commercially perfected so that I can easily fly into Wellington city for my day’s work. Although I am also imagining mid air crashes and a whole set of new airborne traffic regulations.

However, I don’t think entrepreneurial flair is actually so much about the originality of the idea as it is about a combination of the idea and the execution. Richard Branson is an example of someone who would be seen as an entrepreneur, but not necessarily an inventor of new ideas.

I think about my own business, for example. I am a management consultant, and I am certainly not the first management consultant to exist in the world. In fact, I owe a great debt to other management consultants who have gone before me and have created a tradition in which I walk that has generated a market for the services I offer. Nevertheless I definitely offer these services in my own unique way.

So, what is it that is entrepreneurial about all this? One aspect is not working for an employer – being your own boss, and, so to speak, probably gaining the hardest boss of all.

So there is no boss to set expectations, provide a performance appraisal or to assign you a pay rise. In this sense you are free from constraints set by "superiors". Of course you also have constraints placed on you by customers. Not only the need to find customers, but also the need to provide them with a better customer experience than they could get anywhere else. This leads to consideration of how much to charge – how much is your product or service worth? As an employee, it’s pretty easy. You are worth your salary. As an entrepreneur, you have to decide what your pricing should be. This is a factor of the value of the services you offer as perceived by your customers, how you differentiate them from others ("stand out from the crowd") and your own confidence about the value you offer.

So, entrepreneurship can be seen as primarily a marketing challenge – whether you have a new idea, or an existing idea that you are going to execute well, perhaps with a unique twist such as to a particular group of people or geographic area.

I think that entrepreneurship boils down to being prepared to learn how to become good at marketing a service or product that you deliver well, to a customer. Therefore you need to have passion to sustain you through the ups and downs of entrepreneurship, competence to provide a product or service effectively, and a market need you can meet, to ensure you have customers.

As a keen amateur tennis player, I have the desire (passion) to be a professional tennis player, but not the competence, nor the customers to pay me at my current level of proficiency. I have the market need (customers – there is apparently a shortage of tennis coaches at the moment) and skill to be a tennis coach, but not the passion (desire).

So you have to have all three – passion to sustain you through the ups and downs of establishing a business, skill to deliver a service, and a market need you can meet comprising customers who will pay you for a skill you are can sustain through your passion for it.

If you have passion, competence and a market need, you have the potential for a vocation, perhaps as an entrepreneur. If you have only one or two out of these three, then you have an avocation – a hobby or interest that will not be able to sustain an ongoing income.

That, to my mind, is the test.

I am grateful to Alan Weiss for the distinction between vocation and avocation.

I have had more than one situation recently in client organisations where a person "Angelica"  has had a problem with person "Boris" or something they have done. Angelica then emails or talks to Boris’s boss "Charlie," (and sometimes a range of other people) explaining the situation and seeking resolution.

It seems that this "dynamic of three people" frequently occurs in organisations, at all levels of seniority.

It is interesting to consider the effects of this in relationship terms. Angelica may have reached the point where she is so frustrated that this is the only option she can see to resolve an important organisational issue. "I am just being honest" or "I am saying what I honestly think" are common aspects of Angelica’s perspective in this situation.

Angelica’s boss Charlie has an opportunity to put a problem right. Angelica has contacted him, complaining about Boris or his actions. Charlie gets the chance to take some action with Boris to resolve the situation.

What action should Charlie the manager take?

One option for Charlie is to go to Boris, inform him of his transgression and work with Boris to remedy the situation. This is a very tempting option for many managers, as it enables them to be directly involved in solving an issue that perhaps could not otherwise be resolved. The manager is then very clear of his or her own contribution to resolving an issue that otherwise might not have a resolution.

I feel for all three participants in this situation. Consider Boris, who all too often is unaware that Angelica even has a problem with him. Seemingly out of the blue, Charlie is discussing an issue with Boris that Boris did not have any opportunity to attempt to resolve.

Another option for Charlie is to respond to Angelica by asking her to talk to Boris and see if they can resolve the issue prior to Charlie getting involved.

Then, at least Charlie only gets involved when Boris is aware that there is an issue and that Angelica and Boris have not been able to resolve the issue together.

And for Angelica, she would have reinforcement of the lesson that the first step in resolving an issue is with the person concerned, and then to go to the manager if resolution is not possible.

From a relationship perspective, I am interested in two aspects – the actions of Charlie the manager and the relationship between Angelica and Boris.

To me, Charlie the manager has to consider the relationship between Angelica and Boris and ensure they have made attempts to resolve the situation before becoming involved. Anything other response will make working with Angelica and Boris difficult in future, regardless of who is "at fault" in this situation.

Angelica’s very act of going to her manager Charlie will sour the relationship with Boris. So Angelica must be on very sure ground prior to approaching Charlie. Although by the time she has raised the issue with Charlie Angelica is so annoyed by what Boris has done that she is not thinking about the longer term relationship with Boris.

Now, Boris may (or may not) have been to blame for the original incident, but from the information provided by Angelica, Charlie wouldn’t be able to tell for certain, and this is commonly the case for managers like Charlie who are approached by staff members like Angelica – Charlie just doesn’t know how much of what he is told that he can reliably take action on.

So, if you are Angelica, try to resolve the issue with Boris before escalating to Charlie.

If you are Boris approaoched by Angelica, be grateful that Angelica has approached you before going to your boss, and work hard to resolve the issue. If you are Boris approached by Charlie, ask Charlie if he can give you some time to tlak to Angelica to attempt to resolve the issue (this happened to me once with a good result although Charlie was initially quite surprised at my request but quickly saw the logic of it).

If you are Charlie approached by Angelica, then encourage Angelica to discuss and resolve the issue with Charlie. If this is not possible from Angelica’s point of view  (i.e she thinks the situation is too far gone to raise it with Boris hersefl directly), offer to faciltate a discussion between tbe two.

Do not say that you’ll take it on and resolve it for her. If you do, you are not demonstrating that you are taking all the points of view seriously. That way lie monsters…

And that’s as prescriptive as I get!

There is an old saw that says that efficiency (or management) is doing things right, with effectiveness (or leadership) being doing the right things. I am sure you have come across this before.

I’m not enamoured of this simplistic bromide, having wondered before on this blog whether is in fact such a thing as leadership. (Search on "leadership," or click on the "leadership" tags or categories to find the threads).

I started to ponder on what this might mean in relation to communication.

If we took the idea of efficient communication, what would it mean? Email is quite efficient – it’s just a matter of typing it and sending it. Twitter and text messages are even more efficient. In this sense, being efficient equates with being "less effort." And then it occurred to me, that this refers to less effort for the sender of the message.

I have a friend though, who regards a phone call as more efficient than a series of texts or emails, say when trying to schedule a meeting. So after a couple of texts or emails about suitable times, he’ll call, saying it’s easier that way. Perhaps he’s also thinking about the effectiveness of the communication – in a phone call he can get it resolved and get a commitment to a time, coming up with alternatives quickly based on the reaction of the other person.

What about effective communication? What would that be? I guess from the perspective of the sender receiver model of communication, you would say that effective communication would be that in which the receiver gets the same message as the receiver intended. So, effective communication has much more consideration of the receiver than the idea of efficient communication, which seems to be more related to the sender’s convenience.

Thinking about this idea of effective communication, I think it is not so much a matter of the accurate transmission of a message, as it is about understanding the response you have received.

In this way of thinking about it, effective communication would be achieved when the parties were satisfied that they had agreed on the meaning of the gesture and response involved.

In any one interaction, it might take several attempts to reach this point of both parties being satisfied that agreement on the meaning had been reached. Many of our interactions actually never reach this point – for example, I might go away from a fight with my partner convinced that he doesn’t understand me.

I think effective communication requires genuine attempts to understand each other, and so repeating yourself, paraphrasing and summarising are all used in the process of coming to understand the meaning of what you are negotiating. When people are coming to grips with proposals for organisational change, effective communication requires methods like paraphrasing, that employ redundancy or duplication, rather than efficient communicating of a message in the shortest time or least amount of effort possible.

Efficiency of communication and effectiveness of communication are certainly not the same thing in organisational change. Further, quests for efficiency in communication may well work against the effectiveness of your communication about change.

How do you communicate something that is likely to be unpopular? For example, how do you tell your team that they are going to have to give something up because of a cost cutting measure that is going to be implemented?

I remember when I was a manager in a large corporate how, in the second half of the financial year we would regularly be told that our travel budget was being reduced by 25%, 50%, or once even 100%.  We got to expect it, and started to build it into our budget at the start of the year. No more travel for the rest of the year, even though you have staff and colleagues in Auckland and you live in Wellington, a 1 hour flight or 700km drive away. How are you supposed to keep a team going in those circumstances?

How do you break the news that there is going to be a review of the organisation’s structure and it may affect many people’s jobs?

How do you tell staff that you need to reduce the number of cars in the fleet, and that the pool cars have to go?

If you have a large number of people to tell, it is tempting to go for efficiency and send out an email – write it down once, send it out, job done.

It is readily apparent that such an approach is not really job done. You have to continue to work with these people, and so you cannot just do anything. You will need them in the future. If they think you’ve done the cowardly equivalent of dumping your girlfriend by text, then it’s likely you’ll get some unanticipated consequences – resistance perhaps, or ignoring the new policy. They decide they can’t trust you, thereby making it difficult to get anything done in future.

Perhaps you go for the more personal touch and tell everybody face to face. Do you do it individually or in group meetings? How do you deal with any resistance? What if people reject the idea, reject you, or even attack you?

I think that for unpopular decisions, the more personal the communications method, the better. The scale and geographic spread of your organisation will have a big influence, but the nearer you can get to a face to face communication, the better. So, phone is better than email. Videoconference is better than phone. In person is better than videoconference.

It’s useful to think about unpopular decisions from the point of view of the decision itself (unpopular outcome), the process of coming up with the decision (fair process), and the opportunity to deal with the consequences of the decision (work arounds).

My suggestion is to use the following structure as your starting point.

1. Summarise the issues relating to the decision.
2. Outline the process you went through to arrive at the decision.
3. Say what the decision is.
4. Provide opportunity for people to tell you the implications of the decision from their perspective.
5. Ask them to identify possible actions or solutions in response to the implications they raise.

Of course it’s even better if you already know what the implications of the decision are before you announce the decision. But beware. The implications for you in your position as manager can be quite different from the implications for your people in their positions as direct reports to you.

So it’s more powerful still if you get to your people before the decision is finalised, tell them what you are contemplating and then ask them what the implications are from their perspective. (Don’t assume you know what their perspective is, even if you now them well and used to do their job yourself.) You can then problem solve with them about how to alleviate the negative implications they’ve identified. And you never know, they might identify some positive implications or opportunities you hadn’t thought of.

I have written quite a bit about competencies on this blog and these past posts have attracted comments from readers. (Click on either the Category or Tag Competencies at the right hand navigation bar to find the posts.)

These posts have also attracted the attention of Korn Ferry, who, I think, own Lominger, which is the set of 67 competencies and associated tools that has swept through the public service in New Zealand. I received an email from a marketing specialist at Korn Ferry asking me if I would be interested in blogging about their current special package, in return for receiving a copy of the package itself.

I have to confess to going immediately into a bit of a spin because it meant that this little blog had been noticed enough to be approached for a deal. So I immediately saw the recognition in this approach – someone out there has noticed and thinks what I’m writing has some value.

I will reveal that my base and crass second reaction was to wonder about whether this could be a first step to monetisation of the blog (i.e. finding a way to make some money out of my blogging efforts). However, receiving four free books is not going to make me Bill Gates. Although at the price they charge for these Lominger books, perhaps it would get me closer than I expected. Either way, please don’t set Inland Revenue onto me!

My third and most significant reaction was to ponder on the ethics of this. Would I be writing an advertisement? I had visions of my blog inundated with Google Ad Words, or dangerous banners luring unsuspecting people to click on them.

Then I thought that maybe what is required is advertorial. You know the kind of thing, write an ad that doesn’t appear to be an ad – oh, that’s called PR.

Would I be required to say "this is an ad" and then promote the books? Considering how my previous posts have been critical of competencies, I didn’t think that either of these two alternatives would wash.

And then, perhaps the whole thing was a scam like all the emails I get from (apparently beautiful) women wanting to meet me, or bankers in foreign countries wanting me to move millions of dollars through my account in return for a 10% commission.

So I thought about saying no to the offer. But this wasn’t very attractive either because I don’t like to say no to opportunities too early. I like to explore them well to see how they might work out and what avenues they might open up.

So it took me two weeks of sitting on the fence to figure out what I would do. You are now reading the results.

I replied "Yes" to the offer and the books duly arrived.

The offer is a 45% discount on the following four books:

• "FYI 5th Edition" – note that most Government departments only have version 4, and my previous copy was version 4 as well. So this is the latest.
• "FYI For Teams"
• "You" which is about being more effective in your MBTI (Myers Briggs) type.
• "Broadband Talent Management" which is about coaching others.

The books would normally cost $US252.95 and under this special offer you save $US113.95.

Go to http://store.lominger.com and enter Development Gift Pack to get the discount. Happy reading!

Approaching the end of 2009, it is a bit of a shock to realise that this newsletter has also been going nearly a year now! Also, the milestone of finishing my doctoral degree two years ago is starting to retreat into becoming part of the “recent” past rather than the “immediate recent” past.

This year I have learnt a lot from six new clients I’ve not worked with before. Here are eight things I have learnt or had confirmed this year, in no particular order.

1. There are multiple perspectives on any issue. Many times the people involved don’t know what the other perspectives are. Sensitive topics are often discussed only “in the shadows,” i.e. in private settings with certain trusted others. People see the shouting which has a great impact (“unprofessional”), but not the reason for the shouting (e.g. frustration built up over time). They see colleagues seemingly getting away with things, but don’t see the often laborious performance management processes happening (necessarily) in the background. Making these different perspectives known more widely can help people see the situation differently and thus respond differently. This allows the possibility for people to move out of “ruts,” deeply habitual or “stuck” patterns of relating. I have seen many examples this year of how people’s view of the “facts” can change, with discussion, some time to reflect, and further discussion. It seems important to me in organisational change not to close off the opportunity for further discussion, even with someone who seems entrenched, vocal and angry about an issue.
    
2. Misunderstandings often occur – people will make mistakes, including me and including you. When this happens, the sooner you spot the mistake, apologise and clear the air, and provide correct information, the sooner you can move on in some sort of working relationship. The other person may not “get over it” straight away, but in many business settings people are willing to give you another shot if you clean up any mess you make as you go along. Especially if you can demonstrate what your intent was and that you have acted as soon as you recognised there was a problem.
    
3. Power is not an absolute. Even the most powerful and feared of managers cannot “decree” that all problems will be fixed. It is how people respond to these decrees (or intentions of the manager) that determines how effective these intentions (instructions) will be. This means managers have to take the time to negotiate with their people, what their intentions mean. I have seen a number of examples this year where managers have not spent time discussing genuinely with their people how the desired changes will impact on them. There is a tendency for the power of the position to lead the manager to say “here’s what needs to happen” and then expect their people to adapt. Doing this, the managers dissociate themselves from any potentially unsavoury consequences of these actions. For example, it is much easier to say to a team leader that they should change the schedules of their team than it is to listen carefully to the team manager and help them to work out how to change the schedules without upsetting everyone. After all, what if the manager cannot work out how to do it?
    
4. Power is a function of the relative need that each party has for the other. This relative need is in balance and shifts over time. At some times, e.g. when it comes to performance reviews, the team member might feel a greater need for the manager. By contrast, at times of staff shortage or additional workload, the manager might feel more need for the team member. Power is not so much a matter of one person holding absolute power over another. This means you have to be thinking about the relative need people have for each other when you are in a change situation. It is valuable to take the time to analyse the effects of power relating in your organisation – where has the balance of power been in the past, and what direction is it moving in now?
    
5. Communications processes are often considered as “what the most powerful want to tell the others.” This is often encapsulated in the idea of “key messages” that is so seductive to communications professionals and project teams. By default this approach ends up being one way communication. After all, in the term “key messages” there is no concept of “key responses.” As the manager of a change initiative of whatever scale, provide opportunities for people to tell you what they really think. Make sure you listen to them. And make sure there aren’t any inadvertent punishments (from their point of view) that will be incurred if they tell you their real thoughts. For example, if they tell you that they have doubts about the effectiveness of the issue, don’t write them off as “resistant” and then avoid giving them interesting projects that you would have previously given them. After all, the alternative is that they will tell others what they really think, and not you. Believe me, it’s much better for you, if they tell you. So seek to understand and explore with them those things that appear as resistance.
    
6. Things done poorly by predecessors or others in the past can leave legacies of mistrust. Sometimes, people can say things that make you wonder “where did that come from?” I’ve had two projects this year in which people have attributed to current managers (“management”) sins that were actually related to past managers, rather than the incumbents. People sometimes do not seem to separate out past wrongs done to them by managers who are no longer around, especially if they feel that somehow you have done something that is unfair to them. If you are a manager with a predecessor who has left a legacy of unfulfilled promises, then you have to work much harder with your people to create the kind of mutual trust you desire.
    
7. I hope that you have not been in a workplace where accusations of workplace bullying occur. I have consulted to several such workplaces now. Where people are in deep seated conflict, then the situations are often accompanied by each party accusing the other of bullying them. My perspective is that organisational politics consists of the daily exercise of power, involving people negotiating, discussing, being polite or impolite to each other, revealing, concealing, pulling rank, delegating and so on. This is how humans in organisations negotiate what they are doing together. When these day to day negotiations break down and it becomes apparent to one party that they cannot go on together, this is experienced as violent. Hence the accusations of bullying that accompany intense organisational conflict. These political processes enable organisations to flourish and get things done. The breakdown of these political negotiations is experienced as violent. When bullying accusations arise in deep seated or long standing conflict situations, the challenge is to find ways for the parties to continue to work together. This is an area where services such as mediation or EAP can really add value, if they are seen in this way. But the challenge is nevertheless a political one. It’s not a matter of attempting to “rise above” politics, which is simply not possible.
    
8. As well as my usual experience of goodwill from managers and staff in the projects I’ve been involved in, I’ve also found myself in situations this year where people have been very upset by organisational proposals, addressing their managers or me with varying degrees of hostility, often in open forums, but sometimes one on one. Misunderstanding and personal threat are behind such reactions. It can be quite challenging when this happens, so it’s no wonder so many consultation processes for restructures or other contentious proposals omit any requirement for face to face discussion and rely on written proposals and written feedback to say they have fulfilled the requirements for “consultation.” This written approach is much more comfortable for the “coalition of the powerful” and the project teams and HR people they hire. Nevertheless, I have found that fronting up to staff about contentious proposals or issues and being calm when others are not is very powerful. Remaining calm, rather than becoming activated by the emotions of others, and continuing to discuss the issues raised rather than reacting to attack has had great results. I’ve later had feedback from people who initially shouted or attacked me or the ideas I represent saying how they can now see what was intended, but couldn’t at the time. This confirms for me that people’s feelings change over time, as their perspectives change. Therefore it makes sense to work with the range of different perspectives of issues. And believe me, with any complex issues, there will be a range of perspectives you can work with.

As a final thought, there are often situations where people are questioning your change proposal, sometimes in very sharp terms. While it appears they may be trying to undermine or challenge your proposal, this is not necessarily the case, even if they seem highly critical, are angry or divert discussion to seemingly irrelevant issues.

They may also be genuinely thinking about how they will take up the proposal, how it will affect them and what they will have to do with their teams to maintain their relationships and get the desired results. And it might seem quite difficult or even impossible to them, at that moment, to see how the change proposal could be successful.

I faced several of these situations this year, where people were upset and seemed unable to address the issues I was raising on behalf of my sponsor in the organisation. It has been confirmed for me that it works best to assume that questions about your desired change are genuine enquiries into the change, and to respond accordingly. This has enabled me to respond graciously and facilitatively to what could be seen as personal attacks. If you treat such questions as resistance and respond as such, then you are assuming that the other party is damaged, that there is something wrong with them. You immediately appear defensive and it then becomes very hard to work together with the other parties to achieve your organisational change objectives. Again, it becomes apparent that there is value in remaining calm while others around are not.

The previous post described the perspective of the world of the CEO of an NGO – what it is like to be funded by an entity that does not actually use the services you provide.

But, it’s not all beer and skittles for a contract/relationship manager in a funding organisation such as a District Health Board. Imagine you are the new contract/relationship manager in the procurement area of the DHB. You start your job and you are responsible for a range of NGOs providing services, some with as few as 2 full time equivalent staff and others with over 100 full time equivalents.

You review each contract and find that some don’t specify how many service users will be catered for. The descriptions of the services specified in the contracts don’t match what the providers tell you they provide. The NGOs explain the reasons for this, but how do you tell if they are valid or not?

Informally, you hear both positive and negative things about the service provider.

One NGO is not meeting the reporting requirements. The information provided is incomplete and they tell you they don’t have the information you need. You can’t tell how many clients have received services, and you can’t tell if they are happy with the service they received. And you are responsible for delivering, through these contracts, a certain quantity of services to certain quality standards.

Basically, you have to walk a tight rope between developing enough trust with the provider so that they’ll tell you what’s going on for them, and at the same time holding the provider accountable for the quality, quantity and results of the services they deliver.

This is not an easy job!