What’s your Weltanschauung?

While most of the time, I can’t remember details of a movie I saw last week, but yet I have a vivid recollection of a scene in the 1966 comedy “The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming.”  I remember Alan Arkin running down a deserted street, screaming the aforementioned title.

That actor is running beside me as I write this blog, as I, yet again, wring my hands because as a sector—and, as individual organizations—we aren’t paying enough serious attention to our own doomsday scenario — the pending exodus of executive directors and the worrisome problem of who will we convince to replace them.

This came to a head for me recently as I thought about how boards select executive directors and executive directors select senior staff.  It is part and parcel of the standard process for hiring in this country (and perhaps elsewhere).  In this country, we hire for a new job based on a person’s performance in a prior job.  We assume that success in the past will ensure success in the future, without deeply understanding the differences between the past position and the hoped-for future position.  Steps up aren’t always linear, despite the appearance on the ladder.

Take, for example, an almost de rigueur question in a job interview:  tell us about a difficult situation in the past (and, perhaps, there is more narrative to the “situation,” such as one where you were trying to get people to see your side, or you were trying to negotiate a compromise between two opposing parties, etc.) which you handled well.  (The flip side to this question, that is, also, frequently asked, is:  tell us about a situation that did not turn out well; in retrospect, what would you do differently)?

The candidate then proceeds to tell you all that s/he did six months ago, a year ago, to resolve the situation in her/his favor.  The interview panelists are either impressed or not, and those who are, are thinking, “Great.  Perfect for our organization.”

But that person who handled the situation six or twelve months ago, will not be the same person in the new position.  The situation could be exactly the same, same players and all, but that person will have a new position, with different perceived and actual authority, according to him/herself and everyone else; many of the other players in the situation will, therefore, see a difference in the relationship—real or assumed–with that person because of that change in real authority.  The reality is that “resolving” a situation can be much, much easier the higher up the organizational chart someone goes.  So, how someone handles things before is not necessarily a good predictor of how that person will do going forward.

So, why do we worry so about how people behaved in the past as opposed to who they are now and what they are capable of doing going forward in that new position?  If I were hiring for a senior leadership position, I’d start with one question and see where it took us.

That question?  What do you read?  What do you read on a regular basis? What’s on the “table”—virtual or real—next to your favorite reading spot?    Are they reading only the local news, not national or international?  Are they reading the professional journals and sources of information just about their mission area or that and the resources for the sector as a whole?  Are they reading research and opinion pieces, or just the latter?  Are they reading about the for-profit sector, and gleaning what we can learn from there?  And, what do they read for fun and entertainment?

BTW, I’m done immediately with anyone who says s/he doesn’t have time to read for pleasure.  Unidimensional leaders need not apply to me.  They could even tell me that they don’t read, but only listen to news, podcasts, etc., and I’ll be okay with that (though I won’t be happy.  I want to understand their weltanschauung, and what informs it, as that will tell me what they are capable of being in their next position.

I worry greatly about the myopia of nonprofit organizations, the sector and the people in them/it.  No nonprofit operates in isolation, as an island unto itself; no leader’s brain can conjure all that is needed to inform decision making.  Leaders who are so focused on the immediate, so consumed by the day-to-day that they don’t see the importance of and, thus, don’t make the time, to insure a full and comprehensive understanding of the larger world in which we operate can easily be fooled by war paint on elephants’ behinds.  (If you’ve never had the pleasure of reading The Travels of Babar, you should—and you’ll get this reference, but only after you read the first in the series, Babar the Elephant).

Being blindsided by our own ignorance can do far more harm to an organization than any amount of good that could come from a myriad of past successes.