Wed • Nov 25th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 5
doing good is harder than it looks
Anyone interested in ending global poverty will want to read “How We Can Help” a November 22, column by Nicholas D. Kristof , in The New York Times Book Review.
He surveys books with conflicting opinions on how to help more than a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day emerge from extreme poverty.
Since taking on a leadership role with NCMI, a faith-based organization intent on ending global poverty, I’ve been reading these books looking for insights about the best way to relieve human suffering resulting from poverty.
A debate is raging among “bleeding hearts” – as Kristof somewhat affectingly describes those motivated by compassion.
On one side are those like Jeffery Sachs, who in “The End of Poverty” argued that the solution lies in more foreign aid from wealthy nations to reach the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. For every $100 of income, the U.S. gives 18 cents in development assistance to poor countries. Sweden gives four times that.
In “The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good,” William Easterly, a New York University professor, contends that more money may do more harm than good.
Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist and author of “Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is A Better Way for Africa” agrees. “The novelty,” Kristof writes, “of an African denouncing aid to Africa, and her book has set off another wave of bitter, personal feuding between the two camps.”
Kristof has taken up the cause of ending the abuse of women in his NY Times column and his recent book with Cheryl WuDunn, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. In his travels among the poorest of the poor he has seen foreign aid projects that work as well as those that don’t.
Between the more aid and the no aid folks is Paul Collier, a Oxford University economist, who in The Bottom Billion, advocates for remedies to mitigate the internal traps that keep poor countries poor in spite of outside assistance. And Kristof likes the The Blue Sweater, a memoir by Jacqueline Novogratz describing her entrepreneurial initiatives among women in Rwanda and other African countries. As the founder of the Aucumen Fund she advocates for “patient capital” a blend of aid and capitalism.
“The helping hand strikes again,” was a cynical critique from the streets directed at some of us trying to relieve poverty in Washington, DC. I learned early on that there are right ways and wrong ways of helping. And I also learned, as Kristof concludes: “doing good is harder than it looks.”
Wed • Nov 18th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 5
there’s more to leadership than being at the top
After nearly 20 years as the CEO of a growing nonprofit organization in Washington, DC, I took an executive leadership position within a large complex faith-based organization, where I served for 15 years. It proved to be one of the biggest adjustments of my career.
I moved from being an executive responsible for an entire organization to reporting to an executive leader. There were times when I wondered whether or not leadership is possible from a secondary position.
I met recently with a group of middle leaders. I’m not sure they liked that designation. It may have sounded to them too much like “mid-level management,” a derogatory phrase often associated with unnecessary expense and counterproductive bureaucracy.
Most of these leaders had followed the leadership path I experienced – from being in a lead position to a subordinate role. This is a more difficult path than for those who move up through the ranks of an organization.
Leading from the middle can be frustrating. It can also be rewarding.
Here are five advantages of leading from the middle.
1. Since leadership is about ideas, any position can provide a platform for advancing good ideas. Ideas, and thus leadership can percolate up.
2. Leadership is more about influence than control. People at all levels of an organization can influence the organizational or corporate culture for good. This is the essence of what Robert Greenleaf taught us about the “servant as leader.” The real leaders in an organization may not be at the top.
3. Leading from within a large organization provides scale that may not be available in smaller organizations. Leading from the middle of a large organization provides opportunities to advance one’s life’s work beyond the confines of a smaller organization.
4. Leading with and within a group provides opportunity for teamwork and collaboration with peers. Some leaders are better suited for shared responsibility than for the sole responsibility required of executive leaders.
5. Leading from the middle provides the luxury of specialization. Leaders in the middle are role-players. They don’t have to do or be responsible for everything. They have the time and privilege of becoming experts at one thing.
Since retiring from the middle of that organization I’ve come to understand more fully that leadership is not positional. Leaders may by found at every level of hierarchical organizations. And those in positions of authority do not always lead. We hope they do, but they don’t always. I have fond memories of colleagues, my peers who provided, and are still providing outstanding leadership from the middle.
Mon • Nov 2nd, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 1
new ideas about managing and leading up
In the best-selling book Good to Great, Jim Collins says, “…to build a successful organization and team you must get the right people on the bus.” But what if the bus driver has a problem?
How many of us have been tempted to leave a job because of a bad boss? I know some who have quit, not because they didn’t like their jobs but because they couldn’t serve well with a bad boss. But quitting is not usually a good thing to do.
In his TechRepublic article, “Dealing with the boss from down below,” Wade Mitchell warns that “While quitting is probably the easiest solution it can be pretty self-destructive.”
What is an employee to do when a bad boss frustrates the will to serve well? Evidently this is not an unusual question given the number of websites dedicated to the issue. HR specialists know that job satisfaction and performance is significantly influenced by the employee/boss relationship.
After reading a couple of recent articles and an excellent new book by John Baldoni, Leading Your Boss: The Subtle Art of Managing Up, I recalled the frustrations I’ve heard recently about bad leaders.
In his book and a recent Washington Post article, “The Upside of a Bad Boss,”Baldoni suggests ways to have influence and lead for the good of an organization in spite of bad leaders. He credits ideas from Michael Useem’s book, “Leading Up: How to Lead Your Boss So You Both Win,” for his upbeat suggestions. The positive lessons learned from serving well in spite of bad bosses apply in any work environment.
“Leading up,” or “managing up” may sound like a new idea, yet most of us have done it without thinking about it, or at least thinking about it as a good thing.
For the most part, leadership flows down not up. However “leading up,” is a reminder that we are mistaken if we think that only bosses lead. There are many ways of leading and serving well from a middle or subordinate position in spite of a bad boss.
Baldoni believes we can learn to push back the right way and to challenge assumptions without challenging the individual above. He offers examples, lessons from stories of people from all walks of life who have made a difference for good in less than perfect circumstances.
Leadership coaching is intended to help bosses become good leaders. Whether leading from the top or the middle it’s important for leaders to learn how to influence their organizations for the common good. While there are limits there are always possibilities for positive change even when the boss could do better.