2. Does he value the people associated with the agency and their contributions to agency excellence? The significance of this requirement is less than obvious. It would be easy to simply nod and move on to the next question. Instead, we need to remember the agency staff is only a sub-set of the people associated with the agency. The broad agency eco system includes potential clients, Initiators, Authorizers, Implementers, and the people associated with the external entities and organizations connected with the agency through point "0" in the Helping Triangle. Team members value all agency stakeholders - internal and external - and their individual contributions to agency excellence.
3. Does he see the agency's goals as personal action steps? We can assume agency staff members work diligently to enable the agency to reach its goals. Were this not the case for individual staff members, they would no longer be part of the agency staff. For Management Team members, however, a higher standard applies. For them, simply doing what is expected to reach agency goals is insufficient. Team members are personally and professionally committed to more than merely reaching agency goals. They are committed to agency excellence. Doing whatever it takes to accomplish this outcome is a personal agenda for each Team member. Agency goals are but personal action steps on the way to excellence.
4. Is he responsive to the needs and interests of everyone associated with the agency? Everyone associated with the agency - agency stakeholders - includes agency staff but also includes everyone else associated with the agency through the Helping Triangle. Being responsive to the needs and interests of everyone in the agency eco system is a daunting expectation. Nonetheless, agency excellence is dependent on just that. Fortunately, no single Management Team member can or is expected to personally respond to the needs and interests of every stakeholder. Rather, he assures the agency responds to each stakeholder's needs and interests. No exceptions. No Excuses.

If individual Management Team members cannot respond to the needs and interests of every stakeholder every time, how is it possible to be responsive to the needs and interests of everyone associated with the agency? Team members are committed to being personally responsive to every stakeholder, every time they become aware of a stakeholder need or interest. The member either responds personally or assures someone else associated with the agency responds appropriately. Further, the Management Team - in conjunction with the Leadership Team - continuously scans the agency eco system for opportunities to be responsive to stakeholders and assures all agency staff members do the same. This requires that this level of stakeholder responsiveness is expected of each staff member. Anything less from any staff member is simply unacceptable.

A cautionary note is important here. Being responsive to the needs and interests of stakeholders does not mean agency staff members always do whatever a stakeholder wants done. However, it does mean every agency staff member does carefully listen to every stakeholder every time and thoughtfully considers the stakeholder's need or interest. Based on this consideration, the staff member then takes appropriate action, also considering the needs and interests of the agency. If the stakeholder need or interest is not going to receive affirmative consideration, the stakeholder does receive a timely and respectful explanation about why. Additionally, the Leadership Team is notified and the Team decides the best way to proceed from there with the stakeholder. The agency is not all things to all people but it is always responsive to everyone.

1. Does he understand his roles with others, where and how he fits-in? This question is more complex than it may at first seem. No one on the agency staff is permitted to define his (or her) role exclusively in terms of what he perceives to be his primary agency function. People usually reflect this orientation by responding to What do you do for the agency? by saying something like I am a…. They complete the statement with words like supervisor, therapist, secretary, day treatment worker, adoption specialist, accountant, Director, social worker, case aide, or receptionist. The list of such self-defining terms can quickly become extensive, especially for larger human services agencies. When people define their roles this way, the agency becomes internally compartmentalized and functionally segmented.

Any of us who have spent more than a few months in a human services agency is familiar with how difficult it can be to get different groups or departments to work cooperatively. Even in fairly small agencies, the barriers to communication, coordinated effort, and integrated work with clients and stakeholders are frequently all but unmanageable. A major source of these issues is a lack of clarity, starting with members of the Management Team, with respect to their roles with others, how and where they fit-in. The underlying issue is agency staff members do not have a single role or function. Everyone has multiple roles and functions. Let's explore this a little more here.

To be an agency staff member and more particularly to be a member of the Management Team, a successful candidate understands:

·       His primary role is to help clients function more successfully. If he does not contribute to this outcome, he is not needed as part of the staff.

·       His role is to respond to the needs and interest of stakeholders. If he does not contribute to this outcome, he is not needed as part of the staff.

·       His role is to contribute to agency excellence. If his work is not necessary to achieve this outcome, he is not needed as part of the agency staff.

·       His role is to support and facilitate the work of every other staff member. If he does not do this, he cannot remain on the agency staff.

·       His role is to also function as a supervisor, therapist, secretary, day treatment worker, adoption specialist, accountant, Director, social worker, case aide, receptionist, or so on. If he does not do this successfully, he cannot be an agency staff member.

Every staff member has multiple functions and sub-functions. Members of the Management Team also have multiple functions and sub-functions. Additionally, they are responsible for the meta functions required to assure all staff members understand their multiple roles with others, how and where they fit-in, and for assuring all staff members completely and consistently fulfill their multiple functions. The functioning of the internal eco system is dependent on the Management Team's success here.

2. Does he work within the scope of his responsibilities and authority? Management Team members not fully understanding and functioning consistently with the full scope of their responsibilities and authority are far more common issues than Team members exceeding or working outside of their responsibilities and authority. All responsibility and authority internal to the agency are initially vested in the agency's CEO. This responsibility and authority are, in turn, partially delegated to other members of the Management Team. Frequently, it is not completely clear exactly what and how much responsibility and authority are passed along to the Team member, especially in relation to situations and circumstances occurring only occasionally. If the Team member is not certain, he (or she) tends to error on the side of accepting too little responsibility or exercising too little authority. He takes what he perceives to be the safest course. Within this gray area between what the CEO thinks was delegated and the Team member knows for sure was delegated is ample room for significant misunderstanding and inaction. Think of this gray area as delegation drift.

Given the prevalence of delegation drift, determining whether someone works within the scope of his responsibilities and authority is not necessarily clear. It is usually clear if he is working outside of the gray area but within the gray area itself, there is ample room for disagreement and ambiguity. Even so, it is important for each Management Team member to function within the scope of his responsibility and authority, accepting maximum responsibility and exercising maximum authority with respect to what has been delegated to him. The Team member's immediate organizational superior must be sure his subordinate clearly understands the scope of his responsibility and authority and only then can the subordinate be judged in terms of whether or not he works within the scope of his responsibility and authority.

3. Does he follow the agency's policies and procedures? Policies and procedures are similar to responsibility and authority. They too are frequently not clear and leave room for differing interpretations and misunderstandings. Policies are simple statements of what the agency and its staff are expected to do. If they are developed as clear, declarative sentences, they usually do not leave much room for misunderstanding unless they include vague descriptors such as high quality, responsive, reasonable, effective, and the like. On the other hand, procedures are usually more equivocal. They show how policies are to be implemented. The format is a step-by-step, instructional guide to be followed. The steps are often somewhat vague, permitting some degree of professional discretion. Further, there are circumstances when the steps cannot be followed exactly or perhaps should not be followed in unanticipated situations. The result is an additional gray area between what is expected and what actually happens. This is another instance of outcome drift. – We return to policy development and implementation in a later chapter.

I hope fundamental aspects of the agency eco system are gradually revealing themselves as our discussion proceeds. We see the system tends to degrade in the absence of ongoing meta-processes to prevent or at least control the processes. This tendency to degrade operates somewhat like entropy. The internal eco system degrades toward internal chaos and ineffectiveness if this type of entropy is permitted to progress. Agency policies and procedures are merely additional areas for potential entropy.

For the above reasons, restricting Management Team membership to people who clearly understand agency policies and the procedures related to their responsibilities is very important. When recruiting people from outside the agency for Management positions, assuring they understand and accept the policies and relevant procedures is a needed step in the process. Further, whether someone is joining the Management Team from the outside or is already a member of the Team, adhering to the policies and following agency procedures in his (or her) agency work are critical elements for achieving agency excellence. All Management Team members and prospective members are carefully scrutinized with respect to following agency policies and procedures - using the reasonable person standard mentioned above - even when the procedures are not specifically related to their usual work.

4. Does he see how his duties and responsibilities relate to other areas of the agency? It is important for all agency staff members to understand how their duties and responsibilities fit in with those of other staff members, but this level of understanding is critical for each member of the Management Team. The primary responsibility of the Management Team is to assure the internal eco system functions successfully in the interest of achieving the agency's mission. Team members assure each member of the agency staff functions consistently with his (or her) assigned duties and responsibilities. In addition, Team members recognize and manage all aspects of the natural entropy in the system to minimize outcome drift and other system tendencies to degrade over time. Only by clearly understanding the inter-dependencies and interactions of all staff members can Team members fulfill this essential responsibility.
5. Does he avoid passing his frustrations and negative opinions along to others? An agency's internal eco system has an exceptionally low tolerance for negative energy. This is generally not more or less true for one agency than for another. The simple reality is internal agency eco systems are fragile. Any severe or persisting negative energy acts like a toxin slowly poisoning the system. Along with this toxic affect, there is a correlative issue. The available energy in the system is fairly constant. If a significant portion of the available energy shifts in a negative direction, the available positive energy to do the agency's work proportionately diminishes. The result is a gradual degrading of the agency's effectiveness. Little-by-little, the agency becomes literally less able to achieve its mission.

We have all seen this negative process operate in agencies to some extent. As a temporary aberration, it usually can be managed and corrected. In some agencies, however, the toxic effect of such negative energy develops so gradually it goes unrecognized or at least is accepted as normal. If this goes too far, either the agency fails and closes or, if that is unlikely as in the case of government agencies, the Authorizers replace the Management Team in the hope agency performance improves.

If passing frustrations and negative opinions along to others is potentially toxic, how do Management Team members handle their frustrations and negative opinions? They understand feeling frustrated or holding negative opinions are indications all is not well in the internal eco system. They first identify what is prompting these perceptions and consider what is required to alter the cause. What is the problem and what will it take to correct it? Frustrations and negative opinions are thus converted into Management opportunities. The Team member then pursues this Management opportunity with the Management Team or with someone who is in a position to affect the perceived cause. Together they develop strategies to correct the problem or issue. Anyone who either will not or cannot manage his (or her) frustrations and negative opinions this way is inappropriate for membership on the Management Team.

It is worth noting anyone in the internal eco system who spreads his (or her) frustrations and negative opinions around indiscriminately, with little to no consideration given to whether other people can or will do anything to correct the perceived issue or problem, is a localized toxin. If he (or she) persists with this behavior, the toxic effect spreads. Other people parrot the behavior with a concomitant increase in generalized toxicity and system jeopardy.

1. Does he bring the same energy and commitment to the job when things are not going well as when they are? The point here relates to the constancy of internal eco system energy discussed above. If a Team member is not bringing a high level of energy and commitment to his (or her) work whether things are going well or not, the effect is the same as with overtly negative behavior. We all know not giving everything we do our best effort reflects a lack of personal integrity and is irresponsible. People who do not consistently give whatever they do their best effort should not be on the Management Team nor should they be permitted to remain as an agency staff member. Responsibility and personal integrity aside, the issue is even more problematic.

An individual has a fairly constant level of energy available to him. Assuming he is not ill and is rested, that level of energy is available to him while at the agency. If he is only directing part of his energy to his work because things are not going well today, the rest of the energy supply is still present. It is expended but as negative energy. This may be hard to see and may be relatively invisible. Nonetheless, the negative energy is there and is poisoning the eco system. If we carefully observe, we will see if one person is not giving a job his best effort because things are not going well, others who work with him tend to pick up the negative mood and attitude. Continue to observe and the spreading toxic effect becomes easier to see. It is not acceptable with any staff member, but is intolerable with Management Team members.

2. Does he accurately understand and value his skills and limitations? Typically, people tend not to undervalue their skills and abilities. They usually do not see themselves as unable to do things they can actually do well. They may be reluctant to try things they have not done before, but this is more a lack of self-confidence than a matter of under-valuing skills they really have. The issue is more common in relation to people's limitations. They think they are qualified to do things with which they have little to no experience and for which they are not qualified. This is especially seen in human services agencies in two areas.

First, many people think they are qualified to join the Management Team when few people actually are. Further, people and others already on the Management Team think they are qualified for higher-level positions in the agency when they are not. Carefully assess anyone who wants to join the Management Team or who aspires to a higher position in the agency. It helps to focus on what qualifies him (or her) for the new position and not on how well he handles the position he already has. The new position requires skills and capacities he may or may not have. Be as sure as possible he actually has the needed skills to handle the new position. Promote primarily based on future potential and not exclusively on past performance.

The second area where people under-value their limitations in human services agencies is not specifically relevant here, but deserves a passing note. Human services Providers tend to think they can effectively work with any client who presents at the agency for services. This is particularly seen with clinical staff in agencies providing therapy or counseling services, but is also seen where other types of services are provided. My point here is simply no one can adequately provide clinical or most any other type of service to every client who happens to appear at the agency for services. For this reason, the Management Team needs processes and procedures to assure clients are matched with Providers who are clearly qualified to provide the specific help the client needs.

3. Is he well-organized and prepared when handling any job? This is an obviously important qualification for Management Team membership and requires little elaboration. The issue is being sure all Team members and potential members are carefully screened with the question in mind. As part of the screening, note the question includes two criteria. First, the Team member is organized when handling any job. Second, he (or she) is prepared. This preparation happens before he starts the job. He does not do anything off the cuff, by winging it, or without adequate preparation. People sometimes say they could do a job in their sleep someone else might think was difficult. Suffice it to say, if they believe that, they should go do it somewhere else. The Management Team only includes people who invest the time and energy needed to be organized and prepared, with every job, every time.
4. Does he handle tasks and assignments in a timely manner? This is an obviously important criterion for Management Team membership. Just be sure to include things like responding to phone calls and emails, arriving at and starting meetings on time, keeping scheduled appointments, and getting back to people when they expect a response. Everything counts, including the little things along with the bigger things such as completing projects or finishing assignments on schedule. Recall the simple standard from Chapter Two: Do the right things right, the first time, on time, every time…. If we remember it is on time, every time, the timeliness of tasks and assignments is never an issue.
5. Does he take personal responsibility when he sees something needs done and no one is doing it? Personal responsibility is among the most essential characteristics of an effective Management Team member. We saw …agency Managers do not manage people. They manage the internal eco system or aspects of the eco system. This means Management Team members are not managing each other nor is any member being managed by someone else. Team members are self-managing organisms within the internal eco system. One effect of this is all members are equally accountable for the successful functioning of the internal eco system. If something needs done and no one is doing it, then each member of the Team is accountable for its not getting done and is personally responsible for assuring it is done.
6. Does he pitch in and work a little harder, do a little more when necessary? This is a further example of personal responsibility. The point goes somewhat beyond this, though. Each Management Team member is personally responsible for the successful functioning of the internal eco system. He (or she) does whatever is needed to achieve this outcome. How much he does on any occasion or how hard he works depends on what is necessary to keep the system functioning successfully.