Like many in the nonprofit sector, I have spent much of my career in small staff environments. The nimbleness, entrepreneurial spirit and experimentalism this enables can be exhilarating and productive. It can be stressful too, particularly when resources are limited. This can lead to something of a hero mentality, where talented and passionate zealots take on too much work. To make matters worse, when leaders (especially founders) do share responsibility, they have a tendency to choose “clones,” people they feel will handle things the way they would. It takes most of us awhile to internalize and operationalize what we already know intellectually – that a well-run organization requires diversity of skills.
But diversity of skills is not good enough. Once we become proficient at creating and managing teams with balanced skills, there is a more complicated kind of diversity we must master, diversity of personality. Teams are made up of human beings, and balancing diverse attitudes and attributes among team members can go a long way to developing teams that innovate, problem solve and make healthy decisions. Attempting to build organizations by replicating, rather than complementing, leaders’ strengths dampens progress, limits capacity and diminishes potential outcomes. Teamwork, it seems, doesn’t come naturally in our nonprofit sector.
One of the shining stars I’ve come across in building creative, diverse teams is Rabbi Ari Segal, Head of School at Shalhevet High School in Los Angeles. A master of recruitment and staff empowerment, Segal’s outcomes speak volumes for his approach. I asked him how he balances the wildly diverse group of staff members he has enticed into joining his powerful team. Segal pointed me to several resources. One was a book by Adam Grant entitled The Originals. I recently read the book at the urging of one of our foundation’s trustees, and I highly recommend it as well. Another source for him was something called The Q factor, a set of diversity rules developed by Brian Uzzi, a sociologist at Northwestern University. The essential message is that team members collaborate best when people know each other as human beings, but not so intimately that they begin to think alike. The trick to balancing this seems to be to give people autonomy, but also provide enough structure so that there is shared language and goals.
Rabbi Ari Segal, Shalhevet High School
“In fostering innovation and originality,” Rabbi Segal told me, “I am a big proponent of avoiding groupthink. The way to do that is by making sure that there is real diversity of thought on the team – not just people playing devil’s advocate.” He described a team member with whom he often finds himself disagreeing this way: “On a range of issues, we have ended up on different sides of the proverbial aisle, and heated debates have ensued. And not despite this, but because of this, [I view him as an] invaluable asset of our Shalhevet faculty.”
This balancing act can be a struggle, but it a challenge well worth undertaking.
Short of bringing in a group dynamics consultant (which may not be a bad idea) here are some approaches to personality balance in the workplace you may find useful. Be cautioned though, that they are often misued to put people into rigid categories. I find that tendency overly simplistic, dehumanizing and counterproductive at best. For a thoughtful and sensitive leader, however, knowledge of these categorization schemes can help you develop your own framework for thinking about your team and how to bring out the best in it:
Probably the best known resource in this arena is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator test, which identifies 16 personality types. Though it has fallen off the “flavor of the month” list of late, it is still worth playing with.
Another approach is outlined in this very basic piece, which defines personality as “the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual,” and describes five basic personality types. A third approach is outlined in Tom Rath’s Strengths Finder 2.0 protocols, a version of which I recently underwent in the context of a new project we are working on at the Mayberg Foundation.
And to end with my own personal beginning on this journey, I suggest you set aside time to take the VIA Survey of Strengths, an outgrowth of Dr. Martin Seligman’s Positive Psychology. Reading his book Authentic Happiness was an important step for me as well.
Dive into some of the resources listed above and be loose in your thinking. You will soon develop your own style for uncovering what makes each of your team members thrive as individuals and how to facilitate and orchestrate a workplace that gives them the opportunity to thrive as a team as well. Ultimately, this is probably the single most important thing you can do to advance your organization’s vision, mission and values.
I often get asked where I stand on Jewish pluralism. In both my work and personal life, people sometimes perceive what they believe to be a disconnect between my deep commitment to Jewish tradition and my equally rigorous commitment to inclusivity and diversity of practice and belief.
I’d like to see if I can set the record straight.
I’ve seen the words “pluralism” and “pluralistic” used to describe at least three very different approaches to Judaism and Jewish practice. One of those works beautifully for me. The other two do not.
The first pluralism posits that diversity in Judaism is one of our greatest strengths. Minority opinions on legal matters, for example, are documented throughout the ancient discussions of the Talmud. In fact, they are given a place of honor even when rejected. The sharp eyed student of the Rishonim (medieval scholars and philosophers through whom ancient Judaism passed on its way to contemporary hearts and minds) can discern radically divergent theologies in their writings. Even the Shemonah Esrei (or Amidah), the central prayer of Jewish liturgy for 2,000 years, hints in its opening section that communal belief in one G-d coexists with individuals relating to G-d in radically different ways.
I like to call this notion “Big-P Pluralism,” the idea that Judaism is and always was system of diverse ideas, beliefs and practices that interact with each other within a communal, living framework. It gives us a way to engage with authentic Jewish ideas in ways that work for us as individuals, while simultaneously supporting each other and learning from each other’s vastly diverse, and equally rich, personal journeys. It is also, I think, consistent with the value of “inclusivity” that I have come to embrace in my work at the Mayberg Foundation. As an excerpt from the Foundation’s statement of core values affirms, “We believe in building a vibrant and meaningful Judaism for all Jews—regardless of how one identifies or practices—that provides both inspiration and wisdom.” This is a Pluralism I can embrace. At its base is tolerance and coexistence. When nurtured, it can grow into something much more profound: loving, supportive, value-based community. I am, in that sense, an unabashed “Big-P Pluralist.”
Unfortunately, a second pluralism is much more common than the first. This “little-p pluralism” is rooted in convenience and presumed efficacy rather than principle. Out of step with contemporary Jews, many Jewish organizations “slap a J” in front of a myriad of programs in efforts to “Judaify” activities they think will bring people through their doors. This effort to “give the people what they want” in a Jewish context is not necessarily a bad thing, but it smacks of desperation and lack of substance. By all means, let’s do fun and trendy things. But let’s simultaneously find ways to expose people to the vast reservoir of Jewish wisdom and give them tools to extract relevant and useful elements for meaningful contemporary life. Too many organizations look to kitsch in order to combat declining membership and financial viability. Substance would serve them better.
Finally, a third pluralism has emerged, one that I call “Alt-P Pluralism.” All too often “pluralistic” has become a code word for “anti-orthodox.” I have seen Jews denigrate fellow Jews for traditional beliefs and practices they don’t share. “Freedom of religion for all but the Orthodox Jew,” as I heard one person put it. I once watched in disbelief as a member of my own family was accused of being aggressive, simply for quietly living according to her own principles. I have personally been taunted at Jewish events for the food I choose to eat and not eat. When liberalism morphs into an orthodoxy all its own, I call that fundamentalism, not progressivism. Alt-P Pluralism promotes prejudice and division not unity and diversity.
Big-P Pluralism, on the other hand, gives each of us room to engage with Judaism on our own terms while drawing strength from — and giving strength to — our collective Jewish wisdom and community. For my part, I have wrestled for decades to integrate rigorous principles, discipline and religious structure, on the one hand, with openness, spontaneity and sheer joy, on the other. To be sure, I have seen the strictures of religion crowd out substance at times. And I have also seen remarkable talent and powerful spiritual urges squandered because they lacked a structure through which they could be expressed and actualized. I believe I am a better person for having engaged in that journey of balancing and synergizing these apparent polar opposites. That has been my personal journey so far, and people with radically different views from my own have played a major role along the way.
We all have the right, and maybe even the responsibility to pursue our own individual journeys. Big-P Pluralism gives us a way to embark on those journeys for ourselves, but not by ourselves.
Goals are exactly the opposite of what you think they are.
I have recently been teaching an emerging staff member a system of principle centered goal setting that I began developing in 2009 — originally for my own use — in consultation with a behavioral and organizational expert then serving as my professional coach.
Borrowing heavily from the second habit of Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and incorporating elements from several other philosophies, my system has served me incredibly well, giving me renewed energy, freedom, accomplishment and fulfillment while invigorating my most important relationships. When I was running Do More Mission I helped numerous coaching clients adapt the system to their own styles and priorities. Nearly everyone who applied it found it similarly game changing.
The power of this approach is that it creates direct links between tiny, granular actions and profound, big-picture visions for “the good life.” Through a sequence of five successive stages, precise to-do lists emerge from the individual’s most preciously held values. As simple as it is challenging, the system can be learned and deployed by anyone with the self-honesty, open-mindedness and courage to give it a sincere try.
We’ll save teaching my system for another time. Today I want to share something paradoxical that I’ve learned about goals and goal setting while experimenting with this powerful system. I hope this observation will motivate you to devote more attention to goal setting in your own life, whatever approach you use.
Most of us believe goals are ends toward which we strive. In fact, the reverse is true. “The good life” is Now. It emerges in the details of how we live our lives in each moment. Goal setting is one way of directing those actions, right now, toward what matters most to us. Goals are a hedge, if you will, against our distractible and impulsive nature. Creating well-formed goals and action plans carefully linked back to personal values and beliefs is a difficult and sometimes tedious process. The payoff of the hard work is that goals give us guideposts that tell us whether any given action moves us toward or away from our best selves. Goal setting reveals governing values to protect us from the vicissitudes of mood, impulse, emotion and circumstance. Though none of us will consistently make right choices, goals give us a fighting chance. This has never been more important than in our contemporary, always-on world with its infinite inputs grabbing mercilessly for our scattered attention.
When looked at this way, goals paradoxically become “means,” and good choices in each moment become “ends”. The ultimate righteous purpose of making value centered choices as often as possible is served well by the means — the strategy — of thoughtful and detailed goal setting and planning.
“Integrity in the moment of choice,” as my wise coach often reminded me, is the name of the game. It is, after all, the only thing we have control over.
This week I read Edward Luce’s jarring The Retreat of Western Liberalism. His sober assessment of American and European democracy left me more concerned than ever about today’s fractured political and economic environment. As for post-2016-election America, Luce doesn’t spare criticism of either the right or left as he draws into high relief the historical and economic conditions that form the basis of his bleak outlook for the future of America and of democracy. Whatever your take on Luce’s (borderline) dystopian implications, few would argue with his assertion that we live in a time filled with fear of economic insecurity, political polarization and cultural turbulence.
Scary stuff to be sure!
But let’s take a giant step back from the edge for just a moment. While Luce is focused on the economy as a driving factor for the precarious position we find ourselves in, there is another major driver that we in the philanthropic and nonprofit sector just may be in a unique position to do something about.
tical institutions have all weakened dramatically. Putnam and others have argued that social capital, trust, norms of reciprocity – these sometimes intangible concepts with elusive definitions — form the glue that keeps democratic republics cohesive and free market capitalism alive. Trends in political and economic successes and failures can be linked directly to the health of civil society. The ever-evolving political scientist and political economist, Francis Fukuyama makes this case convincingly in Trust: The Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995)
Going all the way back to Alexis deTocqueville’s observations of a young United States of America (Democracy in America,1835, 1840), our great nation has been known for its citizenry’s peculiar tendency to form voluntary “associations” of all kinds. Tocqueville and his intellectual descendants keenly deduced that democracy’s impact and viability had something to do with this phenomenon, that civil, social, trade and professional associations were an indispensable element to democracy.
So what’s this got to do with philanthropic and nonprofit leaders?
As home base for our nation’s wildly diverse voluntary associations, the nonprofit and philanthropic sector might be thought of as the guardian of American civil society. If that’s true, it’s high time we step up and into that role, intentionally… and quickly.
So how do we go about doing that in today’s polarized environment? There are as many answers as there are voluntary associations (whether formal nonprofit organizations or not). For my money, one good starting point for any organization would look carefully at its decision making processes. We should take every opportunity to promote collaborative decision making in our organizations. Even small, seemingly insignificant decisions can be harnessed as opportunities for building social capital among participants and giving them experiences with civil debate and deliberation. This can be introduced at the board level, committee level, staff level, membership level, beneficiary level, etc. People already affiliate and associate with the organizations we run and fund. Let’s make that connection count for the health of society. I’m not claiming that nonprofit participation alone will solve our country’s ills. Rather, I am asserting that without the benefits that nonprofit participation provides, business and government alone will never pull us out of the quagmire in which we find ourselves stuck in 2017.
With the populace increasingly divided, aligning with political actors assembled on artificially bright battle lines, each with certainty that theirs is the only right perspective, who will give Americans an opportunity to interact as fellows? How will they re-discover that even in their diversity they are part of a single union, dependent on its component parts for survival and prosperity? This has always been the role of America’s third sector. We create a free space where enlightened self-interest can thrive, where voluntary actors contribute wealth, wisdom and work to complement government and free commerce by generating their own experimental forms of public good. At its best, our philanthropic and nonprofit sector finishes what government and commerce leaves undone while simultaneously forging communities of individuals. Some early observers of philanthropy in America have described our sector as a training ground for democratic participation, an institution uniquely suited to turn partisans into citizens.
Far from some head-in-the-clouds fantasy, this concept is hardwired into the United States Constitution itself. By prohibiting government from establishing or interfering with religion, the First Amendment left room for private citizens to assemble freely and voluntarily to step into social roles historically fulfilled by official state churches. This simultaneously enabled the birth of the American philanthropic and nonprofit sector as we know it and it left room for Americans to weave themselves together with one another to form the very fabric of American society. It has been a clumsy, messy and sometimes unfair and unjust process, but in ways large and small, it enabled the rise of the best aspects of this great nation. It is our beating heart… and our best hope.