Will your organization survive your departure?

The founding generation sets up their organisation with passion, vision and commitment – be it a charity, a social enterprise or a business. The founding board members often feel like trustees, even if they don’t have that official title.

The relationship between the board and the first employees is often a close and personal one. The early employees join because they share the founders’ same passion, vision and commitment. There is a sense of being one cohesive family.Such an organisation, driven by commitment and passion, is a winning formula! The team works hard to birth the new organisation and sustain it.

But if an organisation is going to continue growing and flourishing, the founding board members will need to change their approach over time, in the same way that parents need to ‘let go’ of their children as they grow into independence.

I have seen sad cases of charities that couldn’t trust the future generations. They codified their shared values. They appointed ‘keepers of the sacred flame’ to keep things just the way they were. The generation of founders (having humbly learnt from their mistakes) tried to prevent the next generation making any mistakes at all – mistakes that they in turn could learn from.

By the second generation, an organisation must start to develop new ways to sustain and adapt its vision. This can be hard for the earlier generations to watch. They remember the situations that led to the existing ways of working and they worry that the new generation may reject sound principles or endanger the organisation’s legacy.

It takes a skilled chairman to help the board see that an organisation should be greater than the individuals involved today. One with vision and diplomacy that prepares it for effective functioning after all the current members have moved on.

Such a chairman needs to create an environment where new blood can contribute fully and build trust with the board; an environment where the formation of new relationships is a normal and valued activity.A chairman can encourage the board to be relationally outward looking through regular evaluation of its skills gaps and the appointment of new members in a regular cycle. He or she will also find ways for the board to build appropriate relationships with all parts of the organisation, instead of relying on close personal contacts with valued long-term employees.

The board needs to be in a position to make sound and balanced judgements about employees, customers or others and this requires a range of input and perspective.Intentionally establishing reliable flows of information can feel unnatural. There can be a sense that creating intentional relationships in addition to existing informal personal and social relationships is less relational rather than more. Some founding directors will struggle with the transition, where others will be able to embrace change and transition relatively easily. Here again the role of the chairman is crucial; steering the board through transition, whilst honouring previous contributions and respecting individuals enough not to demand more than they can give.

Handled well, a board transition can result in a board made up of diverse vision-holders who have the capacity to handle the challenges of the future. That capacity will include the ability to relate effectively and intentionally with the whole organisation and its current and future stakeholders.

This article was written by Renuma Consulting and was published on their website. Renuma Consulting helps organisations measure and improve their corporate relationships.

Photo: 2012 Newcastle Olympic Torch Relay (by Kurosawa Michiyo on Flickr)

Why do doctors go on strike?

Letter to the Times (unpublished) 

On Tuesday 12th January, 2017, across the UK Junior doctors went on strike in a dispute over pay and working hours. The dispute centres around the Healthy Secretary’s (Jeremy Hunt) proposals under which ‘normal’ working hours will include weekends and evenings. This means that doctor’s pay for these anti-social hours will be greatly reduced.

This is part of a move by the government to turn the NHS into a ‘seven-day-a-week’ service. Jeremy Hunt wants to get more work out of the same workforce for the same overall cost. And as it will make it cheaper for hospitals to roster doctors during these hours, more will be working time for which they were previously paid a premium.

The important question to ask, is who are the ‘stakeholders’ in the junior doctors’ strike? Which relationships matter most?

The government argue that relationships between patients and the NHS trump all other considerations; patient care can be improved by a 24/7 service, so it is an open and shut case. But is it so simple?

Which relationships are the ‘losers’ if the government succeeds in its plans? There is no point in junior doctors working without other related professional groups – anaesthetists, bed managers, nurses, radiologists, pharmacists, social workers, and ancillary staff. Has the government thought through the effects on relationships among professionals if they come under the stress of a 7-day work pattern?

Has it considered mental health and burn-out effects, which all damage relationships both inside and outside the NHS? Has it also considered the cost to partners, children, extended families and communities if another chunk of the workforce is removed from being present in their households over weekends?

And it is not even clear that the public either want or need additional medical services on Sundays. Early trials with 7-day GP surgeries did not demonstrate public demand. There is in effect already a 7-day NHS. Those who urgently need help always get it.

Are the ‘market men’ really more important to government than those concerned for public sector efficiency and social well-being which is most people’s priority?

Author: Dr Michael Schluter CBE – founder of the Relational Thinking Network

Photo: West Suffolk Hospital, Not Hunt’s to Sell (By sasastro from Flickr).