NAI Blog

If you haven’t read any of Jim Collins’ books (Good to Great, Built to Last, How the Mighty Fall) you might want to add these to your reading list. Jim taught at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business for a number of years, then moved to Boulder, Colorado, and started working with CEOs to apply his concepts to real-world scenarios. Most recently he has been working to apply the theories of great business practices to the social sector—non-profits and NGOs.

Jim has studied a handful of outstanding business across two decades to see why they continue to endure and outperform their peers. He identified some consistent trends among these truly great organizations:

• Top leadership is focused on the core values of the organization and on the clientele, not on themselves. They put the needs of their organization above their own needs.
• Top leadership is focused on having the right people in the right positions with the right tools and resources to do great work. Who comes before what or why.
• Leaders are willing to confront and acknowledge the brutal facts and not engage in dodging, blame-shifting or denial.
• The organization is willing to change, to re-invent itself in response to changing market forces. However, while products and procedures may change, the great organization will never change or compromise its core values.
• Effective change in the organization is the result of long-term, disciplined thought and action. There’s an old saying, “It took us twenty years to become an overnight success.” and that’s closer to the truth than one might think.
• And Jim’s ultimate observation: great organizations NEVER, EVER GIVE UP. Most organizations and businesses have hit bottom at one time or another, but they have used the experience to grow and renew themselves, not throw in the towel.

As I listened to Jim describe his research and observations at a recent conference, I was reflecting on our current efforts to improve NAI. It seems like we already have a number of these greatness factors working in our favor. We most certainly are an organization of people that are focused on other people. Our current reorganization effort is a response to facing the brutal facts that we aren’t living up to our promise to deliver services to many region and section members. We have received responses to the reorganization proposal from a large number of members that are glad to see the organization is willing to make significant changes, even if they have varying opinions on particular details of the changes. And there have been dark times in the past with our predecessors, Western Interpreters Association and Association of Interpretive Naturalists, when most organizations would have called it quits—but we kept it together and went on to form NAI.

In particular, we have stood by our core values and core business—Inspiring leadership and excellence to advance heritage interpretation as a profession. We continue to pursue our stated vision to be the recognized voice of interpretation. If you haven’t looked at the core values or goals, you might want to visit these on the NAI website at: http://www.interpnet.com/about_nai/mission.shtml . I regularly encounter member questions based on some other ideas or assumptions about the goals of NAI, so I expect this would be a good refresher for many of us. When you look at our core business, the current reorganization recommendations will make even more sense.

Jim Collins has a free diagnostic tool available on his website. If you’d like to see how his principles apply to your organization, you can access the tool kit, as well as other helpful information at: http://www.jimcollins.com/tools.html.

I’ve been hearing some disturbing rumors about the future role of regions and sections in NAI under the reorganization proposal. There is no plan for NAI to dissolve regions whatsoever. There are some regions and sections that have been struggling for extended periods of time, and we need to figure out a plan to provide the member services that have been the responsibility of the regions and sections to all members. This is not new—the African-American Experience section was re-cast as a branch of CILH a couple of years ago to ensure a place for AAE members. Regions and sections that choose to continue to offer training and networking may do so under the new proposal – those that do not wish to continue will be able to disband.

I’m not sure how this got started, but it may be related to the use of the term “affiliate” in the reorganization proposal. NAI has a number of sub-units or subdivisions—regions, sections, international partners—and there are probably more in our future. Rather than call each of these out every time in the proposal, they are collectively referred to as “affiliates.” That term is not meant to diminish the unique character, contribution or importance of any segment of our organization. It’s simply a convenient way to refer to the many spokes in this great wheel called NAI, with the national office being the hub where all these spokes converge. NAI is looking for ways to support the successful existing sub-units while encouraging creative new short- and long-term combinations of members for training and networking opportunities.

Indeed, this proposal includes some important measures to help ensure the success of those regions and sections that are and wish to continue providing valuable member services. Our member surveys indicate that the level and frequency of services to members varies (sometimes widely) among regions and sections. The national office is prepared to provide a basic level of service to all members so that every member gets the benefits they pay for (i.e. newsletters, networking opportunities), and then individual regions and sections in the form of affiliates can add to that. The proposal also makes it easier to operate as a region or section by relaxing requirements for the number of officers, meetings or other operational mandates that each region or section has to satisfy. Again, any region or section is welcome and encouraged to operate at a higher level—as many do now. Overall, we’re hoping that if a region or section has to invest fewer resources in meeting administrative mandates, more resources will be available to add to services for their members. Members within the regions and sections that are faltering or simply don’t have the nucleus to remain viable can decide to disband. If they do, NAI will assist members in those areas to form new types of affiliates committed to offering training and networking opportunities.

While I’m addressing rumors, let’s talk money for a minute. I also hear rumors that the national office is going to “confiscate the treasuries” of regions or sections. Members need to understand that for many years now there has only been one treasury for NAI, and that is managed by the national office. This was done at the recommendation of our auditors to conform to tighter accounting practices. The IRS holds the national office (and the national officers) accountable for all monies held in the name of NAI. We conduct an annual audit of all funds that also goes into many details of our operation to make sure we meet increasingly strict financial and ethical standards. In essence, the national office serves at the “bank of NAI.” You and I don’t personally deal with the FDIC or bank examiners—we’re happy to let the bank take care of those functions. It’s the same thing with NAI. Now there is one added complication: because the IRS grants us tax-exempt status, we are also required to spend our funds in specific areas, such as professional development, training, communications or other support for interpretation consistent with our mission. That’s as true today for each region and section as it is for the national office and will be true for any affiliate in the future. Without knowing how regions and sections will make decisions to continue or to disband, the present proposal suggests that the present ledger accounts held within NAI for the regions and sections would be distributed over the coming years in the form of scholarships, fellowships and grants to eligible members within those geographical or subject defined groups. Assistance, both monetary and staff expertise, to affiliates for future training or networking events would come through the national office. This topic needs further discussion as we find out the needs and desires of the future affiliates (some being regions and sections that decide to continue their programs). The point here is to ensure delivery of equal service levels to all of our members, those that are in successful regions and sections and those that are not, and meet the requirements of the IRS. A strong national NAI is essential to all members.

The official reorganization proposal is being circulated to all region and section leadership and will be posted shortly on the NAI website for everyone to look at first hand. Please take the time to read it, ask questions, and then make an informed decision about what the proposed changes will do for you as a member of NAI.

One of the important discussions before NAI is to determine the best way to select members of our Board of Directors.  The Board is the ultimate authority in the organization, determining strategy and policy, and determining overall direction for the organization.  So this is an important decision that must be carefully considered.

In general, NAI has been blessed with a board that collectively exercises good judgment and foresight.  So “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”  Well there are some features of our Board structure and selection process that don’t necessarily ensure the ongoing success of the Board:

The pool for selecting board members is limited in some ways:  Half the board is drawn from the pool of elected Region and Section Directors.  In most cases we elect a Region or Section Director because we believe they’ll be a good leader for our Region or Section.  That doesn’t necessarily mean they have the best skill set to run the entire organization—but there’s a good chance they may be appointed to the Board to do exactly that, help govern NAI.  As some of our regions and sections falter, this selection process becomes more of an issue.

Your choices are limited: As it currently stands, the full membership gets the opportunity to elect the five executive officers on the board (President, VP Programs, VP Administration, Treasurer, Secretary).  And all too often there may not be two viable candidates for each office, so your choice is limited further.

Our Board is made up of interpreters: This may not seem like a limitation to you, but it can be.  Boards need experts in finance, development, business, organizational development, law and other skill sets that aren’t necessarily prevalent among interpreters.  Even when we find an interpreter with some of these needed skills, they may not be “electable” under our current system.  Our three (appointed) at-large members on the Board have provided a limited opportunity to bring in these skill sets and have been a valuable addition to the structure of the board.

So how do we find a way to select a Board that will better serve the organization?  There are all kinds of models for non-profit boards.  Some that may suite our needs include:

• Nominating Committee made up of members and directors selects a slate of candidates that are then appointed to the Board
• Board fills vacancies by selecting candidates from key committees that have demonstrated leadership skills
• Nominating Committee (members/directors) develop a slate of candidates that is ratified at annual membership meeting.
• Members submit application for Board positions to a Nominating Committee (we don’t seem to have much luck with this currently)
• Status quo—we keep the current system in place:  I have to say that less than 20% of our membership participates in the elections process currently, so this doesn’t seem to be working very well (along with the weaknesses I mentioned above).

The overriding concern seems to be ensuring the Board represents the membership as a whole and/or maintains responsiveness and accountability to the membership.  Could that be accomplished with a more open nomination process?  Some way to ratify Board appointments?  A more timely way to remove ineffective Board members?  There may be a number of alternatives.

I did some research on appointed vs. elected boards.  Many national foundations have appointed boards, as do some large conservation organizations and charities.  These organizations usually have a large membership, but may or may not be viewed as a membership organization.  The research I saw focused on governing or regulatory boards for the most part.  The gist of the findings was that appointed boards were more timely and decisive in tackling tough issues and rendering difficult decisions, while elected boards were more flexible and tended to be deliberative over decisive.

So we have lots of options available to us.  The current elections process, while not broken, doesn’t seem to work as well as it could and I think we can improve on it.  There’s also a little quirk in Colorado law that penalizes NAI (roughly $26,000 each year) for electing our board through a balloting process (go figure?).  You have the opportunity to choose the way we select our leadership in the future. The re-structuring proposal presently being discussed by NAI includes a change to an appointed Board.  The task force believes it will make NAI more nimble, more able to respond to the changing conditions within the profession.

—Jim Covel

An island is a great place to contemplate the concept of evolution. (It seemed to work for Charles Darwin.) I know there are multiple perspectives and meanings related to this term, so for the purposes of this article, I’m defining evolution as a process by which something develops into a different or better form. Things change over time, including individuals, organizations, and cultures. So it was good timing that I spent a week in Hawai’i recently, with time to think about the ongoing evolution of NAI.

The challenge for both creatures and cultures on an island is the tendency to become isolated. Evolution doesn’t stop in this situation, but it may proceed at a different pace or in different directions than if those creatures or cultures were exposed to the mainstream of the larger world. That isolation isn’t a bad thing—it can be rather blissful as long as it lasts. The problems occur when the isolation ends and outside influences cause a crisis for the island populations where they must adapt rapidly or face cataclysmic decline. These crises usually occur when the island population is reconnected to the outside world after long periods of isolation. It’s a mixed blessing—isolation can yield unique cultures and creatures, but in today’s interconnected world those isolated populations are often at risk through mere exposure.

I have marveled at the amazing examples of adaptation (or lack thereof) in the Hawaiian islands. This series of volcanic islands sits at the crossroads of the Pacific, yet they were isolated long enough to develop a unique culture and distinctive flora and fauna. Some of these species are remarkably resilient, like the lichens, sadleria ferns, and Ohi’a trees that begin growing within months on recent lava flows. At the same time, a number of endemic plant and bird species are very fragile in some ways and have been severely impacted by competition when exposed to introduced species. The Hawaiian culture is a great story of retaining cultural integrity and identity while incorporating influences from a variety of Pacific Rim neighbors.

There may be some lessons here for us. First, I like to think of interpreters as one of those resilient and adaptive species. Like the Ohi’a trees, we seem to be able to sprout anew after experiencing devastating hits to programs, budgets, or staff. At the same time, we need to be careful not to succumb to the blissful ignorance of existing in isolation from the larger world. We need to stay connected to important events that will influence our future and maintain our ability to adapt quickly to new circumstances. In order to keep up with our changing world, NAI is constantly scanning the larger economic, social, political, and cultural environment we function within, looking forward for trends that we must adapt to if we’re going to remain relevant and successful. To do otherwise would be risking the long-term viability of the organization.

Over the past year NAI has been conducting one of those periodic internal and external scans—a “check-up” on the health of the organization, if you will. Through electronic surveys, emails, and focus groups, every member has been invited to provide feedback about services and processes, and over 1,000 of you responded. The Board appointed a task force to sort through this input, draw out the trends, and make recommendations for NAI to modify our services, structure, or operations to respond to these trends. That group has accomplished its charge and is now vetting these recommendations. Ultimately, we will all vote on these changes that will constitute the next step in the ongoing evolution of NAI.

Make no mistake about it, we must change; we must continue to evolve as an organization. The economic, social, and political climate—even the actual climate—is changing around us. In such a dynamic environment we can’t afford to stand still. Indecision or discomfort with change can be organizational suicide in the long run. How we change is up to us collectively. We have the choice to define a new future for NAI now, or let circumstances define it for us down the road. I prefer that first option, and I look forward to sharing that new future with you.

NAI’s president Jim Covel is the senior manager of guest experience at the Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California. Reach Jim at jcovel@mbayaq.org.