Archive for the ‘Strategies for Change’ Category

 

Collaboration: Myths and Realities

Posted on: March 31st, 2010 by Hayim Herring
In a recent article in Commentary Magazine, Dr. Jack Wertheimer noted, “Five years ago, during the economic boom, I conducted a series of interviews with some 40 knowledgeable observers of Jewish communal life. The more astute argued that it was only a matter of time before much of the Jewish organizational infrastructure collapsed under its own weight.”
Economics is finally driving a consolidation of organizations and services that was overdue. Now, funders and planners often gravitate toward two words in these times, collaboration and merger. Both have to happen, but when does collaboration make sense?
In this post, I want to define the term “collaboration” and explain when it is and is not a useful strategy. Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals. For example, a synagogue and a Jewish Community Center might collaborate in offering adult Jewish learning or teen educational programs. The purpose of collaboration is to improve the quality, frequency or accessibility of these programs–to provide a better experience for the constituent in some way.
Collaborations can do so because they increase available resources. That happens when the stakeholders in the collaboration have a commitment to mutually beneficial relationships and clearly-defined goals and a jointly-developed structure with shared responsibility, authority and accountability for successful outcomes. Collaborations are limited in scope, dealing with defined populations or issues. Regardless of how clearly-defined they are, if participating stakeholders do not develop trust, they are likely not to work well or last long.
I’ve learned that donors and staff often understood understand collaboration differently from one another. A donor may really be thinking “merger” when he or she uses the word collaboration, and a staff person may believe that one stakeholder is more “equal” than another in a collaboration. Also, donors may think that collaborations offer greater efficiencies and cost-savings, but that is not usually so, at least at the beginning. As any staff person with experience in collaboration can attest, they often take more time and don’t yield significant cost savings initially, or at all.
Collaborations can be beneficial when thinking about how existing and potential constituents can enjoy greater variety, convenience, accessibility and quality. They can also help strengthen community bonds by enabling friendships among individuals who normally don’t have a chance to meet one another. And, they can spur creativity by bringing together stakeholders with complementary experiences. When these opportunities for collaboration exist, then you know that you have fertile territory to pursue them.
I’ll look at some other organizational strategies for these new economic times. In the meantime, what has your experience been with collaborations? What benefits have you experienced and what challenges have you faced?
Thanks,
Rabbi Hayim Herring

In a recent article in Commentary Magazine, Dr. Jack Wertheimer noted, “Five years ago, during the economic boom, I conducted a series of interviews with some 40 knowledgeable observers of Jewish communal life. The more astute argued that it was only a matter of time before much of the Jewish organizational infrastructure collapsed under its own weight.”

Economics is finally driving a consolidation of organizations and services that was overdue. Now, funders and planners often gravitate toward two words in these times, collaboration and merger. Both have to happen, but when does collaboration make sense?

In this post, I want to define the term “collaboration” and explain when it is and is not a useful strategy. Collaboration is a mutually beneficial and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve common goals. For example, a synagogue and a Jewish Community Center might collaborate in offering adult Jewish learning or teen educational programs. The purpose of collaboration is to improve the quality, frequency or accessibility of these programs–to provide a better experience for the constituent in some way.

Collaborations can do so because they increase available resources. That happens when the stakeholders in the collaboration have a commitment to mutually beneficial relationships and clearly-defined goals and a jointly-developed structure with shared responsibility, authority and accountability for successful outcomes. Collaborations are limited in scope, dealing with defined populations or issues. Regardless of how clearly-defined they are, if participating stakeholders do not develop trust, they are likely not to work well or last long.

I’ve learned that donors and staff often understand collaboration differently from one another. A donor may really be thinking “merger” when he or she uses the word collaboration, and a staff person may believe that one stakeholder is more “equal” than another in a collaboration. Also, donors may think that collaborations offer greater efficiencies and cost-savings, but that is not usually so, at least at the beginning. As any staff person with experience in collaboration can attest, they often take more time and don’t yield significant cost savings initially, or at all.

Collaborations can be beneficial when thinking about how existing and potential constituents can enjoy greater variety, convenience, accessibility and quality. They can also help strengthen community bonds by enabling friendships among individuals who normally don’t have a chance to meet one another. And, they can spur creativity by bringing together stakeholders with complementary experiences. When these opportunities for collaboration exist, then you know that you have fertile territory to pursue them.

I’ll look at some other organizational strategies for these new economic times. In the meantime, what has your experience been with collaborations? What benefits have you experienced and what challenges have you faced?

Thanks,

Rabbi Hayim Herring

In Search of New Rituals

Posted on: November 25th, 2009 by Hayim Herring

I’m in search of new rituals. I’ve been asked to write an article on the development of new rituals, which is certainly a broad topic, and the most enriching way to do so is to tap into your knowledge. I don’t want to define what a new ritual is too tightly because I’d like you to think expansively and consider the range of innovation in rituals which we’ve witnessed over the past several decades. But, here are a few flexible guidelines to stimulate your thinking about this intriguing topic.

By new ritual, I’m thinking:

I’m sure that there are other possible criteria, but again, these illustrations are to help jog your memory about new rituals which you are practicing, have observed or perhaps even created.

I’m also interested in learning about the origins of these rituals from you. For those who identify with a religious denomination, did they originate from within your denomination on the grassroots, regional or national level? Or did several synagogues within the denomination begin observing it and then the national structure helped to disseminate it? To what extent did wider social trends help to foster the ritual (feminism, inclusion of the GLBT community in Jewish life, eco-kosher)? How did you learn about these rituals?

Once I hear from you, I’ll compile a list of what I’ve learned and post it on Tools for Shuls. I’m eager to hear what you have to say and thank you in advance!

Rabbi Hayim Herring

Schools: A Case Study in Change for Shuls

Posted on: October 23rd, 2009 by Hayim Herring

I was recently at a favorite coffee shop in Minneapolis.  When I went to pay the bill, there was a post-it note attached to a bowl which had some pennies in it.  The note read, “If you fear change, leave it here.” Given the rapid pace of change in our lives today, I sometimes wish I had a bowl into which I could place my fears about change! But whatever anxieties I have are irrelevant, because it seems that even the most storied institutions we’ve taken for granted are experiencing change.

In fact, I’ve been reading about the next area of great change — higher education– because it has an indirect bearing on synagogues. The halls of the Academy share much in common with the walls of the synagogue.  The Academy has values and traditions.  It also has its own rituals and rewards.  It’s filled with books and learning and prides itself on research and teaching that advances knowledge and changes civilization for the better. Like synagogues, its work takes place in the community and even after graduation (think bar and bat mitzvah and confirmation,) it gives people a chance to continue that relationship through an alumni association. On the financial side, its biggest expenses are capital and staff requirements.

But all of that is starting to change. (I am not making a value judgment about these changes but simply reporting about them.) Many traditional bricks and mortar colleges already offer online classrooms.  Online learning has finally reached the point where it can be delivered with quality. But a traditional university education is very costly compared with earning an online degree.  For better and for worse, as online universities achieve critical mass, students are likely to migrate from the “bricks and mortar” to the “bytes and clicks” environment.

The “better” part of this equation is that higher education will be accessible to more people, while the “worse” part is that an online education cannot account for all of the learning that takes place outside of a classroom.

There may be an even more radical change in the making. It’s not hard to envision a day when students will demand to study with the best professors in their field, whether or not they teach at the university in which they are enrolled.  In other words, they will demand the right to truly customize their education and mix and match courses from a variety of institutions.

We watched the economics of the marketplace force similar changes with other enduring institutions like newspapers, libraries and entertainment.  Now, higher education is the new frontier (and, to my personal dismay, there is a dramatic increase in the number of high school students who will graduate with online degrees, too.)

I’d like to hear your reaction to this post. What other similarities do you see between higher education and institutional religion as found in the synagogue?  What do you think we might be able to learn about the synagogue life from the changes in the Academy?

Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.

Rabbi Hayim Herring

Excellence or Perfection Paralysis?

Posted on: February 6th, 2009 by Hayim Herring

Good is the enemy of great. And that is one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great… Few people attain great lives, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for the good life. The vast majority of companies never become great, precisely because the vast majority become quite good–and that is their main problem.

These are the opening, memorable words in the now classic business book by Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap….and Others Don’t. Collins reminds those of us in the non-profit world as well that we should never simply strive to be just good as an organization but always aspire to become great.  Always aspire toward greatness—is that realistic? I believe that it is—in fact, the answer should be a resounding “yes” in almost everything that happens in a non-profit organization, especially in a religious institution. After all, faith-based organizations rest on the belief that they can model a microcosm of a more ideal community.  Therefore, we should substitute the achievement of just good for great as our overall organizational benchmark. 

If you’re still not convinced of the merits of the aspiration toward greatness, think of it this way: in developing a funding request for an innovative program, would you strive to develop a good proposal or a great proposal?

However, there’s a big difference between reaching for greatness and waiting for perfection.  While people know that perfection is unattainable, they sometimes develop perfection paralysis–the need to polish every word and idea, the desire to anticipate every contingency related to change.  Understandably, individuals involved in nonprofit work need to be very diligent about wisely spending donor dollars and volunteer energy.  But much time can be wasted in trying to create a perfect change process.  Therefore, it is better to achieve 80% of your desired results with excellence than 100% of your desired outcomes with the impossible goal of perfection.  You will accomplish much more, sustain the energy of volunteers and staff and maintain the interest of funders. 

So here’s where I would especially like your opinion: assuming no additional funding, as greatness is an attitude and attribute that isn’t for sale, what would it take to turn your synagogue or organization from a really good one to a great one?

Rabbi Hayim Herring

The Challenge of Innovation and Communication!

Posted on: January 30th, 2009 by Hayim Herring

Here’s one of my favorite stories about the challenges of communicating:

A lawyer was interviewing a man regarding his decision to divorce his wife, and asked, “What are the grounds for your divorce?”
He replied, “I have about 5 acres.”
“No,” he said, “I mean, what’s the foundation of this case?”
“It is made of concrete” he responded.
He said, “Do you have a grudge?”
“Yes,” he replied, “it can hold two cars.”
“Sir, does your wife beat you up?”
“Yes,” he said “several times a week she gets up earlier than I do.”
Finally, in frustration, the lawyer asked, “Why do you want a divorce?”
Looking perplexed, he answered, “My wife says I don’t communicate well.”

According to the Jewish tradition, God did not communicate with the Jewish people at Mount Sinai only once. Rather, the classical rabbis teach that every day God’s voice still emanates from Mount Sinai. (Pirkei Avot 6:2)

Without stretching this analogy, there is something important to learn from this rabbinic teaching: communicating once about critical matters is not enough. No matter how many times you think you have clearly explained a change-related matter, you probably need to continue working at it.

Often, there is a small cadre of people directly assigned with implementing a change and they’ve probably been working at it for some time. They are close to it and understand from the inside out. But, it probably took this group some time to gain clarity on their mandate for change. So if even those who are most intimately associated with the change require time to digest it, consider how much effort is really required to communicate on a broader level.

There are a few strategies that can help you communicate effectively:

When I Googled “communications strategies,” I received 36,800,000 hits—a sign of the challenge of communicating in a multi-media, information-saturated age. So here’s my question: what are the most effective means you’ve found to communicate a change?

Rabbi Hayim Herring

Support, Support, Support!

Posted on: January 22nd, 2009 by Hayim Herring

In order for any kind of change effort to succeed, you have to do more than provide a clear, positive verbal and visual message about the intended change. You also need to help the people who are on the front lines of change become successful.  While it is important to set goals and expectations about the intended outcomes of the change, it’s equally important to support them with the resources to make the leap from doing things how they are currently done to conducting business in a new manner.

Why? Because those responsible for implementing the change are likely to feel incompetent for a period of time, as they let go of the old (which they were good at) and embrace the new (for which it will take time to gain proficiency). During this transition, they need to have the technical support to help them gain mastery of a new skill or process, and the emotional support to let them know that they have permission to ask questions, to make mistakes and to feel frustrated as they transition from how things were done to how things will be done.

For example, let’s look at the adoption of new technologies.  People have different levels of comfort with technology: as a general rule of thumb, the younger the individual, the greater the comfort level. When congregations decide to invest in new technologies, like advanced phone systems, computer software or even photocopiers, they budget for equipment but may not budget sufficient funds for training staff on the new equipment.  Moreover, board members may have unrealistic expectations about the timetable for efficiencies that the new technology promises.  As a result, feelings of frustration on the part of staff and lay leadership occur, causing some to question the need for the investments or the abilities of this staff.  So remember, when investing in any kind of change process, allow time and support for people to adjustments to their new circumstances.

I’d like to hear your story about trying to innovate in your congregation.  What were you trying to achieve that was different?  In hindsight, do you feel that an appropriate amount of support was offered?  What would you do differently next time?  Thanks in advance, for sharing your insights!

Rabbi Hayim Herring

Preparing for the Unexpected

Posted on: January 5th, 2009 by Hayim Herring

I’m writing from Israel, where I’ve been with my family since before the start of the war in Gaza. If I was in Minneapolis now, the media would be showing a graph with a list of school closings and the number of inches of snow that fell in each school district. Snow falling from the sky is a natural event, causing children to miss school and families to rearrange their schedules.

Instead of watching graphs with school closings because of falling snow, we’re watching graphs of school closings in southern Israel’s towns and cities with the number of falling rockets. Rocket fall, unlike snow fall, is not a natural event. Causing it is a humanly-calculated malicious act.

In Minneapolis now, the major safety concern is with the snow falling from the sky. In Israel, schoolchildren and residents of the south now have to worry about the number of rockets raining from the sky.  In fact, over 6,300 rockets have struck Southern Israel since August 2005 when Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza, with over 3000 rockets alone landing since 2008 (Jewish Virtual Library).

Issues in the Middle East are always complex and my purpose is not to treat this war simplistically, nor do I want to minimize the sheer suffering of those innocent Gazan residents. But I can’t believe that if St. Paul started lobbing 50 rockets per day at Minneapolis that anyone would accept this reality.

The subject of Tools for Shuls for the last few weeks has been strategic change. In a related vein, the events of the past 10 days have reminded me of the importance of taking unforeseen events into account and having the flexibility to modify plans based on these contingencies. For the family part of my visit, we’ve had to skip some sites we hoped to see and substitute them with others. For the remaining week that I’m here on a leadership retreat with rabbinical students, we’ve also had to modify our agenda. My guess is that it may change during the retreat as well, based on events. Even when plans are carefully developed months in advance it’s good to remember the expression: “change happens,” and to be prepared for it on all levels of planning.

A version of this blog post appears at www.starsynagogue.org/blog.

Rabbi Hayim Herring

Want Change? Think and Speak Positive!

Posted on: December 29th, 2008 by Hayim Herring

In my last post, I explained why pictures, images and other visuals are so critical to any process of change. But words matter just as much when it comes to initiating and sustaining change. In striving for that desired new future, you have to describe it in emotionally-positive verbal messages.

I want to stress the importance of the message being positive, because message makers often choose fear as the emotion of choice when it comes to talking about change. “If we don’t increase membership revenue by instituting a new dues structure, we’re going to have to cut programs and services.” Contrast that negative message with, “If we start to utilize the talents of our volunteers more systematically, we can we maintain and even increase the array of programs and services we offer.”

Note that both messages have the same goal in mind—to at least maintain the current level of activity. The difference is that the first one draws upon desperation (a worst case scenario of what will happen), the second upon aspiration (using our potential to maintain and even exceed who we are).

Fear does have a place in fostering change. For example, it’s prudent in these times to make sure that security procedures are in place for emergencies. But the problem with an over reliance upon fear is that it often begets only immediate compliance. By focusing on hope about a better future, we become emotionally inspired to bring the best of ourselves to the process. Whoever said that the carrot is better than the stick was indeed correct!

Rabbi Hayim Herring

We Know Change is Hard—But Why?

Posted on: December 15th, 2008 by Hayim Herring

When asked why change takes so long, we’re often given the proverbial answer, “Because change is hard.” Okay—we all know that change is difficult. But that answer doesn’t get us very far in understanding how to facilitate change. It’s the follow up question, “Why is change so hard?,” that is more fruitful because it generates insights about the root difficulties of change.

Researchers suggest that change is so hard because people carry a picture of the present inside of their heads. This picture blocks the view of what the future might look like. As we live in the present, our assumptions, behaviors and mental images of the present exercise a strong grip on our imaginations and shield against new possibilities emerging in our minds.

That’s why so many advertisements feature “before” and “after” pictures of individuals who have undergone some kind of cosmetic intervention.  Think of the difference in the power between hearing that someone named Jim has decreased lost 50 pounds and then seeing two picture of a shirtless Jim, one at 200 pounds side-by-side with the new Jim at a svelte 150 pounds. No words can dramatize this radical picture of change.

Or, let’s take an example from a building campaign. Why is it that architects will build models of buildings with capital improvements and that members will create some sort of graphic allowing people to see how far they have to go to reach their financial goal? It’s because pictures enable us to glimpse the future in a way that words cannot.

One of the strategies for increasing the ability of people to visualize change is to literally give them a picture of what change will look like. Otherwise, no matter how frequently you try, their picture of the present will override a picture of a new and improved future.

Here are two items that I’d like to hear from you about:

  1. Can you relate a story about how visual images have worked to support change in your congregation or organization?
  2. What other explanations do you have as to why change is so hard?

Rabbi Hayim Herring

Pick the Low Hanging Fruit or Reach for the Stars?

Posted on: December 4th, 2008 by Hayim Herring

Conventional wisdom suggests that if you want to create some kind of organizational change then don’t stretch far at first– reach for the “low hanging fruit.” The “wisdom” in doing so is to create trust in the group involved in the change process and confidence in their ability to make a difference.  The “low hanging fruit” approach is group practice for the real change to come. The benefits of this approach are clear but its deficits are rarely discussed. These include:

The opposite approach to change can be described as think large, move quickly and start small.  This approach focuses on practicing imaginative thinking, seeing results soon but in manageable projects. I call this the “reach for the stars” approach.  Some of its disadvantages include:

Clearly, the choice of the approach will be driven by many factors, including congregational culture, tolerance for risk and leadership abilities.  While there isn’t really a right or wrong approach, my experience has been that synagogues take the “low hanging fruit” approach more often. So I’d like to hear your observations on a few questions:

  1. In what situations have you successfully used the “low hanging fruit” approach over the “reach for the stars” approach?
  2. Have you ever been in situations where you felt that one approach was preferable to the other, but you went against your gut feeling for other reasons?
  3. Given some urgent issues facing the Jewish community, do you think that we need to engage more frequently in the “reach for the stars” method of change?

I’m looking forward to a lively discussion—thanks in advance for contributing to it!

Rabbi Hayim Herring