It shouldn't come as any surprise that government agencies don’t have a reputation for being the most innovative type of organization. So when our management team determined that they wanted to put resources behind supporting new innovations within the agency, it was important to me that the process itself didn’t include any of the stereotypical bureaucratic red tape either.
Read MoreWorking in local government, I can't think of a buzzword that currently holds more weight with the public than "transparency." And the funny thing is that despite its seemingly semi-recent rise to importance, it's really nothing new. In 1913, Louis Brandeis, who would later become a Supreme Court Justice, famously said "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants..." referring to bankers at the turn of the century when financial reform was demanded after the excesses of the Industrial Revolution. He believed that by educating customers and investors through transparency, the public could best regulate bankers through the open market (i.e. poorly performing or corrupt bankers would no longer have customers and would go out of business on their own) and the government wouldn't need to regulate the types of deals that bankers made, nor the potential size of their profits.
Read MoreMy role in helping lead innovation at my agency can be a tricky one. On one hand, there is the out-of-the-box, big dreamer, inspirational, anything is possible, cheerleader side of what I have to do in order to get staff engaged and involved in the process. On the other hand, there is absolutely no point to wasting time coming up with ideas that never see the light of day. So I also have to be the realist, hard-nosed, deadline-setting, "No, we can't wait any longer" project manager as well. It can be hard to balance those roles and not come across as disingenuous when I'm in "We can do it!" mode or as abrupt and uncaring when I'm in "Get it done" mode.
I came across a quote the other day though that struck a cord with me - possibly because I was finding myself a little frustrated with the opposition to a few ideas we were trying to role out from our idea management program.
“The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it.”
Although it helped with my frustration in the moment, I also realized that sometimes I'm the one interrupting or slowing down innovation at our agency, even if it's for good reason, as I've been equally frustrated a few times this week when I wish someone would have put the brakes on a new idea so that we could have collaborated to make the end result a little better. No wonder this innovation stuff can be so hard to nail down. In any given situation it could be equally valid to stop and listen as it may be to tell someone to (respectfully) get out of the way.
When you are rolling out a new project, initiative, or innovation and are faced with some sort of opposition or never-ending input/suggestions, how are you supposed to know which response is appropriate to make sure that you get the best possible result? The two most likely scenarios that you will face include the following:
Luckily, the best course of action to either situation, whether to be open to the new perspective or move forward without it, can be determined by answering the following questions:
Did I do an adequate job of getting input from all of the stakeholders at the beginning? Stakeholders aren't just you and your boss. They should also include the users of the final product, the people responsible for management/maintenance of it, etc. Did you remember to consult IT? Did you actually take the time to talk with the future users beforehand or did you assume that providing training after the fact would be enough? If the answer is no, then take the time to listen to their ideas and concerns and be prepared to delay the project to implement a few of them. This will go a tremendous way in increasing buy-in for the innovation and success of the project once it's rolled out. If however, you did your due diligence in providing stakeholders the opportunity for input and have communicated any changes along the way (and assuming the idea isn't a fantastic one worth delaying for), gently thank them for the input, but move on.
Does the person offer a perspective vastly different from mine? Even if you will be a user of the innovation just like the rest of your co-workers, if you differ in position, department, education, gender, race, family status, place of residence, or other way, it may be worth hearing them out. Of course, you'll always be able to find some difference between yourself and everyone else, but your ideas will be better if they've been vetted by a more diverse group of people. I hate to admit it, but when I'm rolling out new innovations for our customers, I find that it's really important for me to get the "mom perspective" since I've never experienced the joy of trying to use our services with three little kids pulling on my sleeves. It's a good lesson for me to make sure that I include the perspective from the beginning, but if not, it's on me to delay things a bit if they make a valid point.
Is the idea or concern related to the original goal for the innovation? Let's say that you're rolling out software to assist with the hiring process. When you're about to put on the final touches, someone has an idea to add an extra feature to the mix that allows you to also use it for a staff satisfaction survey. Should you stop? Depending on the amount of work necessary, probably not, since it really won't help you would with the original intent of the project. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't make a fantastic addition to version 2! Likewise, let's say that you're purchasing a new piece of equipment and running into some resistance from a staff member who will be responsible for using it. Determine if their cause for concern is related to the reason for purchase (for example, they've used that brand in the past and found it less reliable than other manufacturers) or is it something unrelated to the goal that you're trying to accomplish (they are scared that they will have trouble using the new equipment or are annoyed that they have to add an extra responsibility to their plate). If the concern is directly related to the goal for the project, you may want to hear them out. Otherwise, it's important to acknowledge and show that you understand their concerns and can work with them to address them, but not at the expense of delaying the project.
Coming up with a well-defined set of objectives for any project is critical to avoid these types of issues. For example, when I was leading our website redesign, we decided it was most important to focus on 1) driving sales, 2) making basic info about our programs and facilities as accessible as possible, and 3) having a content management system that make updating the website much easier for staff. Anytime new ideas that we presented that may have cluttered the website, we asked ourselves if it would help us accomplish one of those three objectives. If the answer was "no," then we left the idea to possibly tackle after our initial re-launch.
Does the new idea undo work or just make completing the work less convenient for you? Or, if the concern turns out to be valid, it is easily addressed after the innovation has been rolled out? We all know that it doesn't make a lot of sense to undo work that's already been completed unless necessary. But we also know that the cost of fixing something that wasn't done correctly in the first place is equally wasteful. For this reason, it's important to take a good hard look at yourself and determine whether or not your own resistance to others' new ideas or concerns is because it would be inconvenient for you. Sometimes when you're leading an innovation and are in the homestretch, it can be easy to keep your gaze fixed on the finish line and ignore what could actually be some quick last-minute improvements or last-minute opportunities to avoid a big mistake. Don't become one of the naysayers that you claim to be annoyed with simply because it wasn't originally in your timetable.
Sometimes when we think of project timelines and delays, we think that it has to involve a massive initiative like constructing a building or creating an entirely new product. But in reality, sometimes it seems like the small tiny innovations can be as easily derailed by endless ideas and concerns. Here is a real-life example from my world:
The Innovation: Staff noticed that we had many parents with small children sitting in the lobbies of our recreation centers while they were waiting for the older siblings to complete a lesson of some sort. Wouldn't it be nice to offer some activity kits to help occupy the small children while they waited? Easy, right?
Along the way towards implementing this, we spoke with facility and customer service staff in order to try to address any ideas or concerns that they had. Out of that, we decided to start slow with coloring sheets that visitors could grab straight off of the counter so that no one would need to wait in line during busy periods (it is summer at a recreation center, after all). There would be no stickers, glitter, or other super messy items. Most concerns were noted and addressed and one of our staff even went the extra mile to create an activity sheet featuring our mascots. We were nearing completion of the project though and the following concerns and new ideas were presented by various staff:
So how did it turn out? Here's a photo of the final product!
This project reinforced needing the "mom perspective." We've been complemented multiple times for spending a few extra pennies to get Crayola crayons and how it reflects that our agency cares as about the quality of our services. Who knew?
Okay, I get it. This type of project is almost certainly not what you think of when you think of "innovation" or even of project management. But no matter what you're implementing, you're bound to face these exact same struggles of managing constant new ideas and concerns throughout the life of any innovation. Whether it's about crayons or construction, people want to have input, and want to be understood.
As I work to reinforce a culture of innovation at our agency, I designed the following little reminder for our staff regarding this, in the form of a door hanger.
Sometimes you need to keep the door open...
And in other circumstances, it's time to close the door.
The search for perfection can be one of the greatest hindrances to innovation. We always need to be open to new ideas and perspectives and admit that we don't know everything. But there also comes a point that we need to press on, whether from concerns or an endless list of possible additions to your project. And if you're truly dedicated towards implementing new ideas at your organization, you'll find yourself opening and closing the door on input about as often as you open and close your own office door.
Have you had any other similar situations? How did you address them? Any questions or considerations you've found helpful in these circumstances that I should add to the list?
This article was co-published with Emerging Local Government Leaders.
As someone who works in local government, it's safe to say that I'm not always looked upon as a model member of our society (yet....changing the world's perception takes time). And as a local government worker in Illinois with our rich history of corrupt governors (don't forget that we're also the Land of Lincoln too!), I get even less respect from the public. But when you add to all of that that I work for a "special district," well, let's just say that I sometimes draw a lot of strange looks from my fellow local government peers, especially when I leave the comfort zone of parks & recreation in Illinois.
Now in everyone's defense, I understand that special districts can seem a little odd. In case you aren't aware, special districts are government districts that exist independently from general purpose local governments such as county, municipal, or township governments, and as the name implies, usually exist for a special or specific purpose. Often, they were formed to fund services that general purpose local governments could not (or did not want to) pay for. Of course, years after they have been formed and the citizens have long forgotten that these special districts were created by the voters themselves, they can take a beating by some politicians, university professors, the public, and other local governments as being fragmented, duplicative, and wasteful.
Illinois special districts are under fire right now as the state and other local governments are trying to find a way to tighten their purse strings. And everyone inside and outside of the state likes to throw around the statistic that Illinois has the highest number of local government districts in the country with a total of 6,963 according the 2012 Census of Governments. But before you grab your pitchfork and jump on the special district doubter bandwagon though, it's important to take a few moments to think about what that number really means.
“More government does not necessarily equal more government.”
Illinois may reign in the total number of special districts and overall number of local government districts, but when you exam the number of local government districts per capita, it's dwarfed by many states and is only 14th in the country. Additionally, if you look at the number of state & local non-educational government employees per capita, Illinois falls even further down the list to #47. Yes, you read that correctly...#47. Illinois, the state of "big government" has one of the lowest percentages of government employees in the country.
In the community that I work for, residents pay taxes to several general purpose and school districts, but also to multiple special districts, which on the surface may seem ridiculous in a jurisdiction that is literally less than five square miles. It's important that we're honest where some of this distaste for special districts comes from. It's rooted in the fact that people see additional local government districts negatively because they see local government in general in a negative light and that's a problem for all governments to deal with, not just special districts. There are even some of us that work in local government have to admit that we still hold on to a bit of that ourselves. Don't worry, I forgive you Ron Swanson (apologies for the gratuitous Parks & Recreation tv show reference), but hope you'll keep reading.
“...people see additional local government districts negatively because they see local government in general in a negative light and that a problem for all governments to deal with, not just special districts.”
However, in our community with all of our special districts (and a municipal, township, and county government), we also have some of the best partnerships and sharing that takes place within our boundaries - much more than I often witness between many general purpose governments - not because we're any better, but just out of necessity. Without the mission or ability to be "everything to everyone," special districts often are forced to do what they do well and then work with others to make sure the rest of citizen needs are carried out by those that do them best.
One could also argue that special districts like our park district, give citizens the ability to control the amount of spending dedicated towards its parks and recreation services without as much worry that politics or inter-department budget battles will close their swimming pool or cancel their child's dance class. Additionally, by operating as a smaller, more focused organization, I would also argue that it often allows our park district to be more nimble and responsive to our residents' needs or big challenges like the recent recession.
And it seems that the data would actually agree with me. In a study by the University of Illinois:
“There is strong support for the park district, as compared to city/village government, as the unit of government that would provide greater opportunity for citizen input... A majority of household respondents felt that park and recreation programs and services would suffer if consolidated with city/village or county government... Furthermore, nearly eight out of every ten respondent households indicated that the park district would be the best local governmental unit to provide park and recreation programs, facilities, and park areas. ”
Now I'm not trying to say that the goal should necessarily be to create more special districts, nor am I campaigning for a "Hug Your Local Special District Employee Day" (although that would be nice). And of course, there are exceptions of dysfunctional special districts still operating in silos and I know some amazing park & recreation departments that operate within municipalities. However, the next decade should definitely be an interesting one for local government as citizens and politicians outweigh a distaste for what they believe is "more government" versus some of the funding opportunities that can go along with the creation of special districts.
Instead, I encourage you to not let the naysayers on either side win. No matter what type of government your work for or have in your community, this should never be an "us vs them" situation because ultimately we are all trying to make our communities better places.
Work for a general purpose government? Reach out to your counterparts at a local special district to introduce yourself and see if there are any commonsense ways that you can partner or share resources. Their areas of specialization might help propel your agency forward in ways that you couldn't do on your own.
Work for a special district? Why not invite someone from your local municipality for coffee and show them what you do? It's amazing how many conversations that I have had with colleagues at municipalities started with a misconception about the bureaucracy of special districts that have ended with a twinge of jealousy about what a special district can accomplish when all staff are heading in the same direction.
Are you a resident? I know sometimes our websites aren't the most customer-friendly, but keep trying to get involved - we need you too.
Maybe someday together we can even turn that statistic of 6,963 units of local government in Illinois from a point of embarrassment for some into an actual point of pride. Hey, a girl can dream, right?
This weekend's high ropes course - definitely the tallest ladder I've ever climbed!
In my free time, I volunteer with a local organization to mentor under-served urban youth through outdoor experiences, including in the wilderness. It is often both the most challenging and most rewarding work that I do. This past weekend included taking students from a local school to a high ropes course. Now, considering the first 10 years of my parks & recreation career were in recreation, and many of them were spent working with teens, I have been to my fair share of high ropes course. I love them because they seem to be the great equalizer in terms of social hierarchies within a group of teens. There is always at least one quieter, non-athletic teen that seems to shine on these courses. Cliques break down a bit as some people start to encourage others. And there is always at least one more vocal pack leader that unofficially runs/influences the group that seems to struggle, giving others their chance to lead.
Overall, this might seem like a good thing. And an experience like this can be the best thing for your team. But it can also be the worst. What's the determining factor? You, the team leader.
Most team leaders don't grasp the influence and responsibility that they have regarding group dynamics, especially when it comes to building a new team. And this doesn't just apply to leading teams on a high ropes course. Whether you are leading your staff, a project team, or a group of campers, you are a team leader. As a project manger, I am constantly tasked with quickly building new teams with each new project and have the opportunity to see this action (as well as the benefits when it's done correctly and the negative results when it isn't) on a regular basis. And when observing other team leaders, I see the same three problems over and over again:
Since you're taking the time to read this article, I'm guessing that you're the kind of team leader that actually wants to know how to fix this problem. I'm going to start with Problem #3 and work my way backwards, since that is currently the way most team leaders think (which I guess could be called Problem #4!).
3. Team Leaders Must Be Intentional.
I know that most team leaders want the best for their groups. Unfortunately, it is not enough to add a fun or "team building" activity to your training or agenda and magically have a functioning team appear at the end. Many people plan their team activities based on something they found online or in a book that seems fun or emphasizes some important point like communication or teamwork. But they never stop to think about the following questions:
2. Team Leaders Must Think About Their Individual Team Members and Adjust To Them.
Hopefully now you can see why it is critical that this step take place before planning your team activities. Every team you lead will be different, even if some of the members stay the same. Even when you put a group of people together that all know each other, they may respond in different ways. For example:
It's really important to take time to look at your individual team members and the dynamics at play before moving on to step number #3 if you want your activities to actually address issues like these and move your team along faster.
1. Team Leaders Must Be Aware of How Team Dynamics Are Formed.
Even more important that understanding who your specific team is, it's important that team leaders understand first how any teams are formed. My personal favorite model that seems to ring more and more true with every team I lead is Tuckman's Team Development Model. In this model, there are four core steps that every team goes through.
There are key roles that team leaders need to play depending on what stage their team is currently in. (Click on the image to see it full-sized.)
All teams start at "Forming" and move through each step, building upon the previous one. It is critical for team leaders to be aware of each step and what stage their team is currently at so that they can shepherd their team through the process to the Performing level as quickly as possible, but while emphasizing and ensuring that the culture and expectations that the leader wants to implement are happening.
For example, successful teams will move through the steps with some uncertainty and direction needed from the leader in the beginning, but eventually get to the Performing level where they become those dream teams that lead themselves, solve their own problems, and accomplish their goals.
However, it's just as possible for a team to move up the ladder, but in a negative way. For example, if a dominant person that is negative or doesn't allow others to participate is left unchecked by the team leader and team members, the group may get to the Norming stage, but won't be very productive. Likewise, some teams left unchecked can get stuck at the Storming stage and never actually get much work done.
And to make it even tougher, anytime a new X-factor is introduced to the group (a new team member, a new challenge, a change in direction), the team drops right back down to the Forming stage. In this case, the team could move back up through those first few stages quickly to get back to Performing as long as the team leader acknowledges that this needs to happen. Likewise, think about the possibilities and what it means for a team that can't get past the Storming stage. Would purposefully and intentionally (there's that word again) introducing your own X-factor be what you need to restart the team and get it back on track?
In my experience, the biggest issue team leaders have is a lack of awareness of this model or the information that it contains. In doing so, leaders often lead their teams by doing things that are not appropriate or needed for the stage that their team is currently in, which causes more harm than good. Of course, now that you've read this far into this article, you won't be making that mistake, right?
Back to My Original Point...
So let's get back to my original point. I said that a high ropes course could be either the best thing for your team or the worst depending on the leader.
If the leader understands where their team is in terms of performance, understands (or makes some educated assumptions) about team dynamics and potential challenges, and designs the activity to address those issues and move the team forward, it could be incredibly powerful and beneficial. For example, I often use it at the Forming stage of teen groups to get everyone on a more even playing field by using the activity to give more confidence to step up to be a leader to those that need it, to require different people to work together, and to show that physical strength isn't the only kind of strength. But I also stay keenly aware of those who might be a bit broken by the process or a perceived failure and take extra time to work with them individually on that.
But, you could also just take your team to a high ropes course and let them play and go home. Some might go home happy and empowered on their own. But you might also unintentionally reinforce some negative team dynamics - stronger teammates might talk others into sitting the activity out. Someone might have a perceived failure and walk away feeling worse than they started. And others might be mad at you for wasting their time when they had work to do in the office.
Whatever activities you decide to do with your next team, I hope that you consider this information and most importantly make some intentional decisions about what you want to do. This sort of push might be exactly what your team needs, as long as its catered to their needs, you've anticipated that someone might need a parachute and are ready to catch those that fall. Otherwise, that push just might cause your team to hit rock bottom.
