Whitlock on target about the Penn State child abuse scandal

While I often find Jason Whitlock annoying, he is right on the money in his editorial (linked below) today about the Penn State scandal.

No matter what the exact facts are, this appears to have been mishandled… badly. How can educated, experienced professionals mishandle child abuse? I think there is a paralyzing fear in many institutions and organizations about the corporate brand and finances. Harming the corporate brand means less money from donors, sales of books, etc., thus creating great financial harm.

The peer pressure to protect the reputation of the organization can be very strong. A few believe it is more important to protect the integrity of the organization and its people.

The weighty financial interests of any organization can push many well meaning leaders into silence. I have personally seen it happen on more than one occasion. If you hear the phrase “no money, no mission,” you know that person’s ethics card has been put aside.

I have also seen problems handled bravely and with integrity. I have seen leaders who were not worried about reputation or major donors, but about doing the best thing for the people they lead. They determined that any issues with donors or bad press would eventually work themselves out. They also believed that if doing the right thing meant closing the doors of the organization or institution, then so be it.

All of this is very easy to talk about in theory, but very difficult when you are in a room full of people in the midst of what appears to be a crisis. I have personally seen leaders make people-harming decisions for the “good of the organization.” Today, we are seeing out this turns out at Penn State.

Whitlock’s article: http://goo.gl/8O4tu

3 R’s for Excelling in Job Interviews

I always find job interviews exhausting, whether I am the interviewer, or occasionally in the past as an interviewee. These meetings can be among the most important of your life, so it is critical to have a strategy going into it. In this post, I am going to outline three principles that are especially important for people seeking professional positions.

Read the job description.

Like any other work task, you will find individual interviewers and entire search committees who do not know what they are doing. However, most interview committees are trying to determine if you have the skills and the temperament to do the job. It is frustrating, and an interview killer if the interviewee is not intimately familiar with the job description.

It takes hours of time spread over several weeks or months to develop job descriptions, post the position various places, screen dozens of resumes, and schedule interviews. If someone comes in and has evidently not evaluated the requirements of the job and matched it with their own education and experience, then they are probably not going to get hired.

Research the company or organization.

A common question is why do you want this job, and why do you want to work for this company. If you cannot respond to this basic and foundational information, you probably just blew the interview.

In this day of easy internet searches, it is easy to get the information you need. This also allows you to ask intelligent questions yourself. For example, as part of the interview you could ask “I see the organization has had five CEO’s in the last three years, can you explain why this turnover has occurred?” If the interviewer(s) do not know the answer, or just look at each other uncomfortably, maybe you should look elsewhere for a job.

Rehearse the interview.

There are plenty of sites on the internet that list questions that are asked in interviews. In fact, some of them even suggest good answers. Some managers even go to these same sites to get their questions!

You should also rehearse your answers to questions about your own resume. This is called owning your resume. If you put “skilled in office mediation” for example, you need to be able to explain what this means, and how you got to be so skilled.

As I said above, remember that most interviewers are trying to determine if you have the skills and temperament to do the job. There is also the underlying consideration if you would be someone the interviewer(s) would want to work with. In the end, these meetings may be among the most important of your life, so be ready for them!

“But we have no choice…”

Now that the massive bailout bill failed in the House, everyone is watching to see what will happen next. Are we going to be standing is soup lines, or are things not going to be as dire as predicted? No one really knows.

The thing that continues to catch my attention is “we have to do this.” It does not matter what your principles are, or that you have an uneasy feeling that this is not right, “we just have no choice.” Ironically, Democrats and Republicans are asked to violate different principles. Democrats, who don’t like giving money to large corporations, and Republicans who don’t like government interfering with the free markets.

I have usually found it is the most money obsessed, ethically challenged person in the room who continues to say “I know you don’t want to do this, but we just have no choice. The financial consequences will be dire. You have to vote with me, or support my plan.”

While most agree that there needs to be government action to protect those of us on main street, beware the “but we have no choice” people.  They usually have a flawed or unprincipled plan, and just want you to cast aside your own beliefs and principles. It is a form of bullying, and we need to stand up to it.

Road to dysfunction

The big news in the sporting world this week has been the firing of the president and general manager of the Detroit Lions,  Matt Millen. He had been president for seven years. Millen was one of those leaders, he was going to save the organization, and he was convinced he knew what he was doing. As one sports commentator said, Millen took a mediocre team and made it worse.  

 

The larger story though, is that this team organization has been dysfunctional for almost 15 years (if not longer). It does not seem to matter who comes in, or what they do, the Lions rarely have a winning season, and have won one playoff game  in recent history.

 

 My undergraduate degree was in organizational behavior, so I am interested in things like corporate culture. Some organizations and companies seem to always find a way to be successful and when talk rolls around to “who is the best in the country” their names are mentioned most years. Then, there are the mediocre ones, who seem mired in a “next year” mentality. People come and go, but the mediocrity stays the same.

 

 The Detroit Lions are a case study in mediocre, dysfunctional organizations, and why they stay that way. 

 

They are constantly looking for the quick fix. 

Detroit drafted a fast wide receiver three years in a row. They even traded for a flashy wide receiver one year. Why? Because their leadership said “Well, what we need is the right wide receiver.  If only… we had a fast wide receiver we would be in the Super Bowl.” Everyone around the table nodded and said “wonderful idea.”  ”

 

In reality, building a winning organization takes years of selecting the right players, finding the right staff, and putting an offensive and defensive line (infrastructure) in place. You must have the right people in place who know how to do that.

 

 They don’t know how to hire the right people– and keep them.

 One coaching solution was to hire an old coach who should have already been retired (Bobby Ross), then they swung the other way and hired the bright young talent who had shown tremendous potential for success (Steve Mariucci).

 They have also hired people for coaching positions who have never had experience in those positions before. No other organization would have selected these people for the positions they were given with the Lions. Too many of their draft picks are players no one else wanted.

 The talented and competent people soon start looking for reasons to get out. They get frustrated at the environment they are in and how it seems to suppress excellence and success.

 So the bottom line is that success in any company or organization boils down to the right strategy at the right time, and having the right people and resources in place who can execute that strategy. It’s an easy formula, but a difficult place to get to. Some have never gotten there, and never will.

 

 

Three Reasons to Start Your Career at a Non-Profit

Many young people who major in some field of professional psychology are interested in working for non-profit organizations. They may be somewhat anxious about pursuing this interest because salaries and benefits are lower than what they would receive in government or education, and certainly in the corporate arena. However, as I reflect back over the 16 years I spent in small non-profit organizations, I think there are three reasons someone should consider beginning their career at a place with 10-12 employees or less.

You will develop a wider array of skills

Because of my experience in small non-profit organizations, I have more skills than I likely would have developed had I started where I work now. Among other things, I can design and publish a web page, use an Adobe product to produce a flyer or newsletter, use Excel for a budget report, troubleshoot software and hardware problems on a computer, write a grant, prepare for an audit and manage an event. I mention these things because where I work now we have entire departments that do each of these. I would have learned maybe one or two, but not all of them. Even now, each of these comes in handy from time to time, and I am glad I have the know how.

You will become a big picture thinker and advance quicker

One of the dangers of working for a large organization is that you tend to get focused on your own department or division. Large organizations are complex and difficult to understand. In small organizations, almost everyone is involved in every operational aspect. If there is an event, for example, everyone pitches in, not just event services.

Non-profit organizations are also very generous with advancements and titles. While one might need 20 years of related experience and a graduate degree to be a director or senior manager in a large organization, five years of experience and a bachelor’s degree might get you the same title in a smaller organization. There are organizations with two or three employees who have a president and two vice-presidents. While the title may not mean much in reality, it does give you the “executive experience” claim for your resume.

However, be prepared for a change when you transition to a larger organization. It is not unusual to be senior manager at a small non-profit and program assistant at a larger one. Some people also have difficulty going from being the go-to leader to just one of a large team.

Working with few resources and supporting special causes at the grassroots level

When you work for a non-profit you learn how to make things happen with little or no resources. While this is seen primarily as a negative and stress producing reality, it also has positive benefits. Once you transition to a larger organization you will find that you can make “tight resources” go a lot further. You may also be the person appreciating all the resources you have at your disposal while the people around you are grumbling about what is available to them.

Working for a non-profit also gives you the experience of working at the grassroots level. You understand how to organize people in ways that are not always ideal to get things done. You also have the opportunity to support causes that may never get big or have national prominence. These causes and organizations have always had an important part to play in our country. Even if they are considered by most to be niche issues, you can play a part in benefiting those who care about the cause, or who are personally affected by the issue.

The reality is that most highly qualified people either avoid small non-profits, or stay for an average of two or three years. The stress of volunteer boards and committees, the extreme parcity of resources, and the sacrifice of salary and benefits is too much for most to take on or endure for any length of time. However, it is a career option that young people in particular should seriously consider.