Assessing Organizational Resilience

The concept of resilience has gained a lot of attention in the past several years most notably because everyone one of us has been tested in countless ways, through several years of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Understandably much of the focus has been on evaluating, building and sustaining personal resilience.  However, the conversation around organizational resilience has also started to gain similar attention the more so, perhaps, as the strain on the capacity of various companies and sectors has become more and more noticeable in the past year.  News stories and the reality of hospitals grappling with significant turnover in staff and resulting vacancies, supply chain issues that continue to plague the automobile industry, and the challenge that almost all organizations have faced in pivoting in response to new demands from both customers and staff.  Organizational disappointments, failures and other shortfalls have become relatively commonplace and even expected in today's environment.

An interesting question was posed to me recently on organizational resilience, "How serious is the conversation and the follow-through on organizational resilience?"  A provocative question.  Unfortunately, my response reflected a reasonable degree of cynicism and view that too many leaders might be paying lip service to the very real need to attend to organizational resilience and to sustain such efforts on a long-term, consistent basis.  In some ways, the issue of organizational resilience might fall into the same category as issues like black lives matter, diversity/equity/inclusion, the me too movement and other such events that gain a lot of traction and attention in the moment but whose momentum fails after a few short months.  We have proven ourselves to have notoriously short attention spans on even critical issues, make large and glorious pronouncements, pat ourselves on the back, and try to get back to business as quickly as possible.  

The consequences of a drive to get back to business as usual in current circumstances, however, is that we only further weaken and exhaust our organizational capacity and resilience.  Paradoxically, if want to improve our business and organizational fortunes, leaders will have to go slow to go fast.  Leaders will have to see assessment, development and sustainment of organizational resilience as a key strategic imperative for many years yet to come.  All this begs some questions though - how does one measure organizational resilience and once a benchmark has been established how do you grow organizational resilience?

For now, let's start on the assessment side of resilience.  There are a myriad of tools available for us as individuals to assess our personal resilience.  These tools benefit from strong grounding in schools of thought informed by psychology and efforts to support individual mental health.  I have yet to find as comprehensive or encompassing a tool that helps to assess organizational resilience.  One option to address this gap is to consider the organization as its own living, breathing entity and extrapolate and modify assessment categories accordingly.  The result might start to then focus on key areas of organizational health:

Core Values & Purpose - how well articulated, integrated and widespread are the organization's Mission, Vision, Values and Strategic Directions?

Organizational Decision-Making - to what extent does the organization consistently respond to adverse events in a proactive and constructive manner (versus reactive/panicked mode)?

Organizational Coping Skills - what is the quality and range of tools and supports the organization has for itself, staff and even key stakeholders to support organizational function in the immediate aftermath of an adverse event?

Organizational Self-Care - what is the quality and range of initiatives that the organization has in place to build resilience and capacity in advance of any adverse event?  In contrast to organizational coping skills, organizational self-care represents long-term and sustained investments in building and improving capacity in advance of adversity (e.g., business continuity, learning & development plans, succession planning, etc.).

Organizational Pride & Confidence - this may seem an odd assessment category, but it starts to reflect an investment in organizational culture that rewards and recognizes achievements, strengths and accomplishments of individuals, teams and the entire organization.  The assessment focus can be supported in part through staff engagement surveys but also through evaluation of image/presence in the marketplace.  What is the "personality" or reputation of the organization with its stakeholders?

Organizational Connectivity - this assessment category looks at the degree to which the organization supports not just information sharing but also collaboration and support between teams and different functions/departments within the organization.  A similar effort and lens could be applied to the extent to which an organization is constructively connected and engaged with key external stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, funders, service partners and even competitors).  What is the degree and quality of connection, collaboration and support that the organization can call upon in time of need?

Proactive Worldview - this category can potentially also be assessed through a staff engagement survey or external stakeholder evaluation, and relates to the extent that the organization consistently takes initiative, proactively anticipating changing market conditions, versus constantly or consistently being on the defensive.  This could include an assessment of the strength of the organizations forecasting tools and methods, the ability to strong interrogate reality, and the willingness to support constructive conflict and contrary opinions (i.e., don't shoot the messenger).

Learning Culture - it is suggested that the key to this assessment category is primarily in how the organization handles mistakes, failures, missteps and even significant setbacks.  Can the organization face these issues with some degree of organizational humility and with a focus on appreciating that every challenge has critical feedback and lessons that might have to be sought out and applied for future growth?  

Each of these assessment categories are only as good at assessing organizational resilience as the nature of the questions posed and the degree of honesty and courage in addressing the areas under investigation.  Like individual self-assessments, I recommend that the questions in each area not run to pages and pages but rather focus on the critical few and essential elements.  Similarly, the organizational assessment should err on the side of simplicity so that it can be revisited on a regular basis (and not just annually or every few years).  This ease and simplicity of use will better support the organization to keep its finger on the pulse of the organization and adjust its approach to building and sustaining resilience over time.  

I have not addressed what to do with the results once obtained.  How do you build organizational resilience?  Space and capacity call for that to be addressed in a subsequent blog.  At this point, I welcome you to explore the assessment thoughts posed above, critique them, trial them perhaps, and suggest other options for assessing organizational resilience. 

_______________________________________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

3rd Generation Canadian Ukrainian

gregh@breakpoint.solutions 

www.breakpoint.solutions 

780-250-2543

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Governance Coaching - Why not? What if?

Several years ago an organization reached out to me requesting consulting support in respect of both strategic planning and governance. When the request came in I had this tremendous sense of deja vu.  The organization and the issues they presented to me had an air of familiarity that I could not place and yet I sensed that in some way, some how, in some fashion I had heard this story before.  And it wasn't just that the issues they presented were generically common to other such engagements.  As a consultant and executive coach I was certainly well-versed with this organization's stated desires - revitalize and confirm long-term strategic directions; re-establish understanding and commitment to Mission/Vision/Values; and, clarify and confirm governance framework and implementation through agreed upon policies and protocols.  

For several hours (if not days) after having received the request I found myself wracking my brain as to why this seemed so much more tangible in my mind then any other similar request from any organization.  And then it came to me. I hadn't done this kind of work with this organization before - but a colleague of mine had!  This very same organization had engaged my colleague to provide in-depth governance and conflict resolution services that had resulted in the creation and solidification of governance philosophy and framework with particular emphasis on a Board of Directors code of conduct.  This organization had been experiencing significant conflict at the board level up to an including threats of legal action.  They sought and got support from my colleague to navigate them through this minefield. 

The board had done good work with my consulting colleague.  They had tackled hard issues.  They had arrived at short-term resolution and had set up agreements to help them move forward. Yet two or three years later they were knocking on my door looking to centre themselves yet again.  What had happened?  How did things get lost (again)?  

Make no mistake, every one of the board members was very interested in the work of their organization.  Every one of the board members wanted to make a difference or impact in the work that they were doing.  None of them sought a board position merely to put that type of position on their resume.  For the most part, this is true for almost any board especially for those boards that rely on voluntary (versus paid) commitment.  Almost without exception, directors become involved in an organization because they are committed to its mission and want to help it achieve great things. Yet many boards find themselves floundering and seem to reinvent the proverbial governance wheel on a too frequent basis.  

How do we get boards off this groundhog day type process, where there is a need for a major intervention every few years, where external supports are called in, and significant time, energy and $$$'s are expended to get back to stability and base function?  Increasingly I have come to believe that the answer lies in governance coaching.  Over the past several decades leadership and executive coaching has become more mainstream as it relates to support executives and teams at an operational level.  The reasons for utilizing coaching in this way are many as are the documented benefits of utilizing this leadership and team resource.  This resource has been less utilized or even thought of for boards of directors.

The possibilities for utilizing governance coaching are as extensive as they are in the leadership and management realm including:

• Supporting an entire board establish and affirm their governance philosophy including creation and application of a board of directors code of conduct;
• Supporting a new Chair or other officers of the board to understand their leadership approach, their role as Chair/Officer, and establishing goals/plans to succeed in the role;
• Supporting a Chair and their CEO/Executive Director assess and establish the parameters of their working partnership - for some organizations, by design, this kind of work could take place on an annual basis; and,
• Providing a regular, periodic checkpoint (e.g., monthly, quarterly) through engagement of a governance coach to support the board of directors to maintain momentum and traction on its governance role and goals. 

This list above is not exhaustive and there are as many ways to consider supporting and sustaining board function as do exist for the administrative arm of an organization.  Historically, governance coaching has not been as strongly utilized as leadership coaching both for reasons of cost and an assumption that skilled and committed volunteers or paid directors implicitly understood governance.  In my experience, both of those perspectives have been more often proven (egregiously) wrong than right.  Again, this is NOT for lack of desire to deliver quality work for an organization on behalf of the board members.  But like the leaders and staff they will derive benefit from an external sounding board that helps them confirm and clarify goals, build self-awareness, and keep them on track to the benefit of themselves and their organizations.

In my biased opinion (as a governance coach) organizations need to utilize governance coaching to get governance right.  If we can build and sustain effective governance we provide a strong foundation for effective executive leadership and ultimately sustained organizational success.

It's about governance and its about leadership!

_______________________________________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

3rd Generation Canadian Ukrainian

gregh@breakpoint.solutions 

www.breakpoint.solutions 

780-250-2543

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Building Governance - Sustaining Governance

2022 is in the rear view mirror!  Looking back if I could identify themes from the past year one of those, unfortunately, would be governance dysfunction.  Or rather, I might say continuing governance dysfunction.  I have either been on boards, reported to boards, counselled boards, or counselled leaders reporting to boards for nearly 40 years now.  Despite the supposed advancements in training and development opportunities for boards of directors, certification programs, the proliferation of books and articles on the subject of governance, and a long line-up of well-intentioned people too many organizations are still struggling mightily to get governance right.  

What does dysfunction at the board level look like?  Here are only some of the examples that I could cite from this past year alone:

• Confusion and even outright disagreement on governance philosophy and framework for the board.  As a result, individual board members operate in different and conflicting ways, seeking to engage on issues at different levels of detail, and send confusing messages and directions to operational leadership.

• Rogue board member(s).  Rogue behavior can manifest in several ways.  Sometimes it is one board member, up to an including the Chair, that dominates the board discussion and decisions. There is no opportunity or allowance for other board members to contribute to board decisions in any meaningful way.  This may even include not sharing information that all board members are entitled to receive.  In other cases, rogue board members may be those who take on a role beyond what they have been authorized to do and/or actively undermine decisions made by the board as a whole.

• Lack of clarity of roles.  This can operate at various levels within the governance structure: (1) what is the role, power and obligations of the Board Chair, (2) what is the role, power and accountabilities of other officers of the board and any board committees that may be in place, (3) what is the relationship between the Board Chair and CEO, and, (4) what is the relationship between the Board as a whole and the CEO.

• Off-the-record or side-bar meetings.  The work of a board of directors should be done through formally established committees or working as the whole board.  To the extent that select board members start to operate in the shadows, aligning interests and positions, and even making decisions outside of the sight of the whole board leads to board member disengagement at best and deep distrust and conflict at worst.  

• Failure to take role seriously.  This dysfunction can take on many forms from something as simple (but impactful) as not being prepared for (or even attending) board or committee meetings, not bringing forth their ideas and expertise to board deliberations, and avoiding hard conversations on real issues.

This is only a small listing of challenges that board's face on a regular basis.  How do we (finally) resolve this reality?  The first thing that I believe is necessary to appreciate on the part of any board is that no matter how successful they might believe themselves to be at a moment in time, ongoing success requires the regular expenditure of time, energy, effort and thought in maintaining governance equilibrium and growth.  I have more than one example of being called in to resolve board conflict or improve function two or three years after they have done similar work with another consultant.  Failure to continuously attend to governance can result in a version of groundhog day.

The next step is to for the board to constructively discuss and vigorously debate what the governance philosophy and model should be for the organization.  In this case, while the discussion and final decision can and should be informed by a variety of governance models that exist and what other organizations are doing, every organization should make sure that their model works for their circumstances and in light of their identified mission, vision and values.  All too often a board can find itself hamstrung by preoccupation with procedural matters, worrying more about parliamentary procedure than the big issues they are supposed to be focused on.  In effect, the board loses the forest for the trees.    

This leads us into ensuring that the board in question even understands the mission, vision and values of the organization on whose behalf they govern.  This may seem obvious but too often these foundational elements can be seen as more relevant to the organization as a whole than to the board.  As a result, too little time is spent by the board understanding how they can or should translate these concepts into action at a governance level and how they should be using the mission, vision and values to evaluate the organization's progress and board function.  Therefore, a deep dive into mission, vision and values is called for and should form part of at least an annual touchpoint for the board.

Once these core elements are better understood, the board should dig into its operational procedures including a deep dive into the roles and responsibilities of the Board Chair, Vice-Chair, other officers and committee chairs.  It is important to have each individual taking on these roles understand what they are committing to do on behalf of the board, but it is also important that there be clear understanding on the part of all board members so that they can support these leadership roles and expectations going forward.  In addition, for the purpose of recruitment and succession planning for the board (yes, there is work to be done here as well) you want to make sure that those pursuing or being considered for board membership or positions on the board know what is expected of them.

This point of discussion naturally leads into the need to create, solidify and hold to a code of conduct for the board.  This can be a follow-up on the values discussion we noted earlier. What do the values look like in practice for the board?  How do board members interact with each other?  How do they interact with the rest of the organization and external stakeholders?  What behaviors are "off-side" and what steps do individual board members, the Board Chair or the board as a whole take to resolve such issues?  This conversation and plan must be grounded in practical examples and specific remedies rather than theoretical or abstract constructs. 

The final thing that I want to leave you with is the need to integrate all of these deliberations and outcomes into a set of structures and processes that support and reinforce the approach to governance that a board has decided on. While we have not talked about the relationship with the CEO or Executive Director, the concept of board evaluation, the need and approach to measurement and reporting, and more, it is critical that the board leverage and support the good intentions of its members to stay on track.  In its simplest form this is an agreed-upon annual calendar of board events and responsibilities.  Rather than relying upon memory and goodwill, the organization as a whole is guided by and can anticipate governance work weeks, months and even a year ahead of time.  Rather than responding or reacting in the moment - or even creating crisis in reactive mode - the board is supported and prepared for all aspects of its governance role.

As I have said to some of my clients, I see the role of consultants supporting boards of directors to move them out of reactive and crisis mode to proactive and considered deliberate consideration. In short, I want to help them find and deliver quality through governance.  I want to help them leverage their expertise and good intentions.  I want them to be inspired and to inspire through governance. 

_______________________________________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC

President & Founder - BreakPoint Solutions

3rd Generation Canadian Ukrainian

gregh@breakpoint.solutions 

www.breakpoint.solutions 

780-250-2543

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.