Home Page Forums General Discussion Can you help me interpret this statement re: Accountability?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #207863
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Last one — this is another one that I have questions about from the book I’m reading called “Leading without Power” regarding leadership in non-profit organizations.

    If anyone could comment on what this means in practical terms (how do you hold groups accountable in volunteer organizations without upsetting everyone, making them feel like paid employees, and thus, encouraging turnover)?

    Quote:


    “The building of trust in a non-profit organization requires leaders to hold the group accountable. This obligation has a special connection to trust and has gone without much attention. Organizations must teach themselves what to measure and then periodically evaluate their performance. While some of this may be done among peers, in the end only the leader can hold the entire group — as a group — accountable. As a matter of experience the group looks to the leader to do this. When a leader is unable or unwilling — when she is not intimate enough with what the group intends to be, or how it is progressing toward its potential — to hold the organization accountable — she is guilt of a major betrayal of trust. I know of few things in otherwise fine organizations that will so quickly wither the spirit as the leaders’ failure to hold the organization accountable. (I might add that by holding accountable, I do not mean blame. True accountability belongs to everyone. Blame does not belong in places of realized potential such as a non-profit organization).

    i wrote in the margin — how do you do this? Comments? Have you ever seen a church leader or other leader in a non-profit do this well? What did they do? How do you hold people accountable while building trust at the same time?

    #272355
    Anonymous
    Guest

    The quote to me is focusing on organizational trust.

    The leader is accountable to the organization to give the vision and direction so others know what they should be doing.

    The members of the organizations are held accountable by having updates and progress reports given so the leader can see the resources and time are being spent efficiently.

    In non-profit organizations, there should be little tolerance for waste. No wasting time, resources, or materials. Since there is rarely enough time and money to go around, the leader needs to keep the non-profit organization members engaged in doing what is agreed as the most important things, and avoiding doing the “good” things at the expense of the “agreed upon” things.

    I have seen bishops trust the auxiliaries and groups with doing things however they want, as long as they update the bishop and report on if they are meeting what they promised they would do. The auxiliaries and groups trust the bishop is supporting them with their efforts.

    It sounds to me like the quote is suggesting reports, and meetings, and administration needed to communicate and maintain two-way trust in a non-profit organization.

    #272356
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Upon a second and third reading, I think he also says you hold the GROUP accountable. And that implies team and group discussion about progress against goals. Not individual finger-pointing.

    #272357
    Anonymous
    Guest

    SilentDawning wrote:

    Upon a second and third reading, I think he also says you hold the GROUP accountable. And that implies team and group discussion about progress against goals. Not individual finger-pointing.

    Yes. Individual finger pointing and placing blame or rather pointless because they don’t solve anything or take care of the problem. Rather that accountability is on both the leader and the “group” on goal efforts. As well as finding out if the system itself is working or needs adjustment. It’s a back and forth partnership of trust and responsibility not on an indivisible level but on a leadership and team”group” level.

    The non profits I work for tend not to work top down administrative but side by side, the key difference in for me.

    While there are job positions, they serve as a responsibility for X job role rather then a role of authority. Everyman is down in the trenches working together establishing the trust and goals, leaders and lay man alike. Whole team effort.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.