Leadership Born From Collective Action

"AIDS is essentially a crisis of governance, of what governments do and do not do to and for their people – we have the drugs to treat HIV infection, we have the tools to confront the risks that drive HIV transmission and prevent infection itself – what we don’t have is national political will necessary to scale-up our response. We have demanded too little from our leaders, excused far too much." Gregg Gonsalves, speech at the 2006 Toronto AIDS Conference.

I became an HIV/AIDS activist in 1986 when I was in my twenties. Personal loss, anger, and a vow to see the end of HIV/AIDS has kept me moving towards this goal for twenty five years. To be young and idealistic and following a calling, so many have, it’s what young people do, but what happens when the stakeholders are so affected they continue into the years that follow? Strides are made along the way, small victories, with as many setbacks. There is nothing more compelling than losing a love one to a disease perceived as a moral justification to sin. It was the loss of one special person that moved me into the realization of what social injustice is. Up until that point, I had never been affected by anything so compelling as to be driven beyond my comfort zone and shake my fist at the status quo. 

The interesting part of my leadership is that it came from a collective action organization. Many of the leaders of ACT-UP Shreveport went on to become executive directors and project managers of HIV/AIDS resource centers. It was a tricky migrating from fighting the system to working to build a system. Leaders of a grassroots organizations experience major milestones as their organization builds their culture and history. Unfortunately, not every change process leads to permanent expected results. This is where leadership skills play at major role in how leaders and followers deal with setbacks and accomplishments. Change processes and change projects have become major milestones in many organizations’ history.

Due to the dynamics in the external environment, many organizations find themselves in continuous change. For those who are new to leadership, building skills to face crisis’ that many times involved life or death to those they serve can be extremely terrifying. The scope reaches from smaller change projects in each department of the organization, up to organization wide transformation processes but effects many individual lives the most. Our motto had become, “Change is the only constant.” This article will outline my first experience as a leader and an agent of change, describe who was affected, where it took place, the change model that was used, and how we rewarded failed policies and victories.

The Beginning

ACT-UP Shreveport at the Action on NIH

AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) is an international direct action advocacy group working to impact the lives of people living with AIDS, (PWAs) and the AIDS pandemic to bring about legislation, medical research and treatment and policies to ultimately bring an end to the disease by mitigating loss of health and lives.  ACT UP was organized as a leaderless and effectively anarchist network. This was intentional on the founder of the group, Larry Kramer's part;  he describes it as democratic to a fault. “We used a simple formula for recruitment, to a certain extent, this is how democratic politics is supposed to work in general. You convince people of the validity of your ideas. You have to go out there and convince people" (actupny.org, 1987).

My loss of a dear friend probably isn’t much different than every AIDS activist who is either infected or affected by HIV/AIDS. Those who are personally affected or traumatized, combined with a social environment, usually are people who will find themselves “answering the calling”.  I found myself as one of five founding members  of the newly formed ACTUP Shreveport, with the idealist notion that we would see the end of the AIDS epidemic.

ACT-UP Shreveport was considered one of the leading local branches of the national network. Quoting from the National Institute of Health’s history of HIV/AIDS website that features ACT-UP Shreveport, “The original ACT-UP group from New York inspired numerous other branches nationwide, as well as campaigning in their own states, local groups from across the country attended major rallies” (NIH.com). Hundreds of people locally responded to the call. Along with one sympathetic local physician, we were able to bring forth the first HIV/AIDS resource center, The Philadelphia Center (Philly) and clinic in north Louisiana, The Viral Disease Clinic at LSU Medical Center. It was an amazing accomplishment for those initial six people, two of which were diagnosed with AIDS, and three people who loved them dearly, and the very compassionate doctor, Marcus Spurlock (D-Demaree, 2011).

Part of ACT-UP Shreveport’s agenda was to assist in acquiring funding for an AIDS Resource Center. As we lobbied and protested at the state level, we eventually saw funding available for the center we envisioned. As many activists, I chose to work within the system and not protest against it. With funding available, lower income clients would receive their medication, housing, and other basic needs. It was a victory in our eyes. In the early years, HIV/AIDS took many lives due to the lack of antiviral medications, Social Security set up harsh restrictions disallowing those infected to receive disability income unless they were near death. More than often, people were too sick to work, therefore too sick to afford medication, food or housing. The need for ACT-UP Shreveport, The Viral Disease Clinic, and the Philadelphia Center in Shreveport, Louisiana, was growing expediently week by week and month by month.

The Organization

The Philadelphia Center’s mission is to provide supportive services for people who have AIDS and who have contracted HIV as well as prevent the spread of HIV with education and prevention programs. The center also works to improve the quality of life for those who have contracted HIV. Several of the ACTUP Shreveport members went on to help build the Philadelphia Center from the vision to a grassroots organization. In an era of stigma and fear, there were many obstacles to over come. We were determined as a grassroots organization to overcome the barriers before us and reach the mission of the organization.

People Centered Change

People centered change alters the behavior and skills. For there to be people centered processes, communicating, motivating, leading, and interaction within the group must be ongoing (Dougherty, 2002). As leaders, encountering answers to solve problems, and educate internal and external forces in order to build the organization. Open communication between the different entities .opened up many questions that would be addressed before making any steps towards building the structure of the organization.

Leading Strategic Change

      The first step was to research foundations and federal grants that would provide funding in these areas. Once national and community foundations were identified, the process of application submission and grant writing began. The Philadelphia Center was able to acquire the new Ryan White funding the federal government was issuing to assist those living with HIV/AIDS. With the Viral Disease Clinic newly formed, clients could be segregated from other patients at the hospital and not withstand further stigma and scrutiny. This was a major accomplishment for clients. Once someone tested positive for HIV antibodies, we could work together getting them into the clinic for follow up tests and then back to our case managers for other needs such as housing and basic needs.

The criteria in most grant applications are there has to be evidence of collaborative efforts with other community agencies. This ensures that the work of a nonprofit will have cross beneficially effect with more than just one agency’s demographic. This was a major instrument in bringing in other local agencies who were dependant on grant and foundation funds. Once other agencies realized they could document and profit from collaboration with the center, they publicly accepted the organization, and in turn public opinion began to shift. This is how we were able to motivate others to join us in acceptance within community agencies and with individuals and fostered collaboration and we were aspiring others to achieve. In the beginning, The Philly was looked at as a model HIV/AIDS organization because of the history we had established, building it from a vision into a grassroots HIV/AIDS organization.

Change Model

      There were two change models applied to achieving establishing the “Philly Center.” Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model was used initially. Midway through the change process the Tipping Change Theory was applied. The first discussion of the change model will be Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model and the steps taken.

Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model

The first step we took in the Eight Step Model was to create urgency for change. This began when the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and employees of the Philly tapped into the intellectual capital of the shareholders and employees by brain storming different paths to take when scouting out new income sources. We then went to external forces by inquiring from those affected by the disease, sister organizations, and other community agencies to assess and evaluate the needs. According to Kotter, for the change to be successful, 75 percent of the organization needs to buy into the change (Farris, et al, 2009).  We were able to become more accepted in the community, being invited to come and teach HIV transmission and prevention within the community and in return began to see community financial support, as well as forming a powerful coalition locally, regionally, and nationally.

            As we learned to lead in the community, we were able to understand what our vision should be. By creating a vision and urgency, those affected could internalize the change. Each time we went into the community, we would communicate our mission statement. We spoke of it often, internally and externally.

Removing obstacles

Once the vision buy in was complete, obstacles to the change became apparent. We were able to identify the change leaders and what their roles would be to deliver the change. We set up a system to recognize and reward people who were making change happen. Case managers were given bonuses if they exceeded their monthly quota in units billed to the Ryan White funding source. HIV testing counselors were rewarded bonuses based on the number of people they tested in the community. Once we identified those who were resisting, we worked to remove barriers to the change, which was establishing the resource center’s place in the community, the state, and the country.

Create Short-term Wins

 

          Nothing motivates more than watching the success of change. One way to do this is to create mini goals and short term wins. Some of the ways we created short term wins was to find full proof projects that were perceived as non-threatening to those involved. The organization grew slowly and did not jump into goal targets that were expensive. As funding came in, each department grew until other projects like the Mercy Center, a residential facility; The Mercy Center for homeless people living with HIV was acquired by a local hospital system.

Building confidence as Leaders

Kotter stated that change projects fail because victory is declared too early. Real change runs deep and there are no short cuts to lasting change (Farris, et al, 2009). As leaders of the Philly Center, we did this by analyzing what went right and how to improve the change. We continued to remove obstacles and set goals to a path of achievement. Once the achievements toward change were met, we engrained it as part of the organizations culture. We made sure constant efforts to ensure that the change permeated through every aspect of the  Philly Center. By doing this, it gave the change a solid hold in organization's culture.

The Role of the Leader

There are three leadership qualities of leadership; visionary, participant, and transactional, which produce effective organizational change (Manz, et al, 1991). When leaders act as advocates for change, they won’t allow the process of change to falter from lack of attention. They are willing to invest their political capital to rally those affected. They must be the role model for those in the organization. They must be the decision maker and take responsibility for those decisions. They must be the voice, motivator, and enforcer. Others in the organization need someone to look up to while processing the change they are going through. A good leader will be assessable to them making the process seem easy.

I am convinced because we came from a collective action activist background, we were instinctively grounded in these leadership qualities. We were visionary; we still are. We led by example; we had only ourselves to follow up with tasks. The day we heard Ryan White funding was granted a second funding cycle, we celebrated the victory and then went out and distributed condoms at truck stops and gay bars. We led by being followers and in return, rallied many volunteers and supporters.

Lessons of Leadership Learned

          I continue to learn many lessons as a leader, but in the early days of ACT-UP Shreveport and the Philadelphia Center, experiences that were new stuck with me the most. In the beginning many emotional components were the important characteristics of leadership. I was desperate for  knowledge about HIV/AIDS for effective decision making and relied on others to help me with it. I learned there was more than one right solution and learned to evaluate facts from various points of view. I learned to listen to clients, their needs came first, and I saw anti-gay and anti-AIDS policies as something to rebuke, not something to bow to.

            The most important thing I learned, the importance of transferring ownership to everyone I worked with and to proclaim everyone as hero. This in my opinion is the most important precondition for success; the buy in and involvement of others. I learned to hate the word subordinate and replaced it with co-hero. Everyone in this battle is a hero, the struggles are beyond belief, with the backdrop being the Deep South. Commitment can only be gained when others are given the opportunity to give. That leads me to the final lesson; “The Ask.” Asking for what you need to make others lives better. It is a gift to give and most people want to give, they just don’t know how. Everyone needs to know their contribution is important and valued. When they do, they own successes everyone has worked together to achieve.

Conclusion

As one of the leaders of  ACT-UP Shreveport and The Philly Center, I learned how to progress from one milestone to another by creating a plan to overcome barriers that mapped out structure and time restraints. There were many plans. Work plans that were subject to change based on whatever crisis happened that day. Service plans for clients to meet their needs, even though ultimately those needs were never met because they died too soon. Funeral plans and helping grieving families and partners through the months that followed. Plans were the only way we were going to meet the demands of so many variables.

Barriers to implementation were preoccupation with the day to day details, lack of teamwork, conflicting priorities, and funding issues. I learned that execution takes time, especially when grant requirements usually demand evidence based outcomes that must be documented over time. By implementing the “tipping point” theory of change, which was scribbled on our things to do chalk board, improvements that appeared to be small, functions that needed to empower consumers, were better executed to reach our mission; to serve more people with greater outcomes.

 Over thirty three million men, women, and children are thought to be living with HIV. Even with the strides made today, discrimination, stigma, ignorance and the lack of effective preventive measures are still huge barriers that stifle reaching the ultimate goal; the end of HIV/AIDS. We just can’t afford the enormous medical expense and the loss of life. Twenty five years and counting, and the battle is still as enormous. I always knew it wasn’t going to be easy. I always knew it was going to be worth it.

References

Against The Odds:A New Disease. (n.d.). Retrieved from

            http://apps.nlm.nih.gov/againsttheodds/exhibit/action_on_aids/new_disease.cfm

Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product

innovation. Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 13, 77-77. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/231179375?accountid=32521

Farris, K. B., PhD., Demb, A., Janke, K. K., PhD., Kelley, K., & Scott, S. A., PharmD.

(2009). Assessment to transform competency-based curricula.  American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(8), 1-158. Retrieved from

            http://search.proquest.com/docview/211313601?accountid=32521

Philadelphia Center: Northwest Louisiana HIV/AIDS Resource Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from

            http://philadelphiacenter.org/

The Siren's Call: Agent of Change- HIV/AIDS Activists Demand the End to the Madness.             (n.d.). The Siren's Call. Retrieved from http://d-demaree.blogspot.com/2011/12/agent-of-change-hivaids-hope-for-and.html

No Electorial Choices? Then Don't Vote.

To elect a master or many, for a long or short time, is to resign one's liberty. 

Call it an absolute monarch, a constitutional king, or a simple M.P., the candidate that you raise to the throne, to the seat, or to the easy chair, he will always be your master. They are persons that you put "above" the law, since they have the power of making the laws, and because it is their mission to see that they are obeyed.

For the first time in my life, my right wing conservative father and I have decided neither of us are voting for Obama or Romney. "Who should we vote for then," he asked. Never been asked that of my father, I had a suggestion, "Let's just not vote".

Bad Leaders or Bad System?

The Democratic party bemoaned the fact that Obama "immediately made huge concessions to forces to the right of him."  Rather than place this action  in an institutional context, the forces placed on the elected person by the  state machinery and pressures from big business, the Republicans portray these decisions are the failings of an individual. They argue we "need to keep up the pressure to demand Obama listens to ordinary workers and not to business."

As well as economic pressures from capitalists resulting from capital flight, withdrawal of support, and so on, representatives also face pressures within the state itself due to the bureaucracy that comes with centralism. There is a difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection of institutions that have entrenched power structures and interests. The government is made up of various politicians. It is the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence, not the representatives who come and go. We cannot expect different politicians to act in different ways to the same pressures. However, this is all ignored by the Democrats in favour of wishing Obama was more a liberal and could ignore the demands of the dominant class in society while in charge of one part of its protector and creation, the state.

They also argue that the low level of turn out in the elections indicate "a sign of deep alienation that millions of people feel from the whole political system, one which does not reflect their views or give them a voice."  Presumably, the Democrats seek to give these people "a voice," to involve them in the political system by getting them to vote on various social issues. They can only do that by overcoming the alienation people feel towards the capitalist system by ensuring that it does "reflect their views." If that is the case then surely this implies that the Democrats will be working within the capitalist system, trying to influence it from within and, by necessity, subject to the same institutional pressures that generated reformist, unless, of course, they argue that it is the ideas of the party leaders that are the decisive factor rather than the social environment in which they operate?

What is significant, however, than Lenin's arguments were fundamentally idealist in nature, looking to the intentions and will-power of the individuals involved rather than a materialist analysis based on the nature of the capitalist state, the way it is structured to protect and enforce bourgeois rule, the influences and pressures of the permanent state apparatus on the elected representatives, the economic pressure exerted by capital, and so on.

Parties and Power

The use of electioneering has a centralising effect on the movements that use it. Political actions become considered as parliamentary activities made for the population by their representatives, with the 'rank and file' left with no other role than that of passive support. Only the leaders are actively involved and the main emphasis falls upon the leaders. It soon becomes taken for granted that they should determine policy (even ignoring conference decisions when required -- how many times have politicians turned round and done the exact opposite of what they promised or introduced the exact opposite of party policy?). In the end, party conferences become simply like parliamentary elections, with party members supporting this leader against another.

Soon the party reflects the division between manual and mental labour so necessary for the capitalist system. Instead of working class self-activity and self-determination, there is a substitution and a non working class leadership acting for people replaces self-management in social struggle and within the party itself takes shape. Electioneering strengthens the leaders dominance over the party and the party over the people it claims to represent. And, of course, the real causes and solutions to the problems we face are mystified by the leadership and rarely discussed in order to concentrate on the popular issues that will get them elected.

Working in the state ensures a statist perspective becomes dominant. Everything is seen in terms of state intervention, following the decisions of the leaders and quickly results in radicals "instead of weakening the false and enslaving belief in law and government . . . actually work[ing] to strengthen the people's faith in forcible authority and government." [A. Berkman, Op. Cit., p. 84] Which has always proved deadly to encouraging a spirit of revolt, self-management and self-help -- the very keys to creating change in a society.

Thus the 1870 resolution of the Spanish section of the First International seems to have been proven to be totally correct:

"Any participation of the working class in the middle class political government would merely consolidate the present state of affairs and necessarily paralyse the socialist revolutionary action of the proletariat. The Federation [of unions making up the Spanish section of the International] is the true representative of labour, and should work outside the political system." [quoted by Jose Pierats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 169]

Instead of trying to gain control of the state, for whatever reasons, anarchists try to promote a culture of resistance within society that makes the state subject to pressure from without. Or, to quote Proudhon, we see the"problem before the labouring classes . . . [as] consist[ing of] not in capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly, -- that is, in generating from the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a greater authority, a more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the state and subjugate them." For, "to combat and reduce power, to put it in its proper place in society, it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave."[System of Economical Contradictions, p. 398 and p. 397] Direct action is the key way of doing this and the means of creating such a "combination."

State and Structure

The simple fact is that the bourgeois state has been developed to enforce minority rule. Its structure is no more an accident than the structure of a bird's wing. The wing has evolved to enable flight. The state has evolved a structure based upon minority, top-down rule that ensures the continence and protection of that rule. And as Kropotkin argued, anarchists "maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to which minorities resorted for establishing and organising their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to destroy these privileges." [Peter Kropotkin, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 170]

The same means cannot be used to serve different ends as there is an intrinsic relationship between the instruments used and the results obtained -- that is why the bourgeoisie do not encourage participatory democracy in the state or the workplace! Just as the capitalist workplace is organised to produce proletarians and capital along with cloth and steel, the capitalist state is organised to protect and reinforce minority power. The state and the capitalist workplace are not simply means or neutral instruments. Rather they are social structures which generate, reinforce and protect specific social relations. These social relations are based on delegating power to others, letting leaders act for you, letting others fight for you. These have an impact on those who use these tactics, both the individuals and the organisations.

The "essence" of state is, to use Luigi Frabbi's words, "centralised power" and "hierarchical despotism." It is based on delegating power into the hands of a few -- in a democracy, elected representatives and the state bureaucracy. It should be a truism that elections empower the politicians and not the voters. Parliamentarianism focuses the fight for change into the hands of leaders by its very nature. Rather than those involved doing the fighting, the organising, the decision making, that power rests in the hands of the representative. The importance of the leaders is stressed, as it must be in a centralised system.

Not voting? Not Enough!

As part and parcel of anarchist support on direct action is abstentionism. This signifies the rejection of voting. However, there is more than one kind of abstentionism. There is passive and active abstentionism. Passive abstentionism is that associated with alienation, apathy and a-politicalism. The one which bases itself on a "cannot be bothered," cynical attitude and little else. This form of abstentionism easily leads to rejecting all forms of struggle and politics, including direct action and anarchism. Anarchists are against this just as much as any socialist voter.

Rather, anarchists see abstentionism as a positive statement, a means of turning the natural negative reaction to an unjust system into positive activity (i.e. direct action, solidarity, self-activity and self-organisation). So, anarchist opposition to electioneering has deep political implications which Luigi Galleani addressed when he wrote: "anarchists' electoral abstentionism implies not only a conception that is opposed to the principle of representation (which is totally rejected by anarchism), it implies above all an absolute lack of confidence in the State. . . Furthermore, anarchist abstentionism has consequences which are much less superficial than the inert apathy ascribed to it by the sneering careerists of 'scientific socialism' [i.e. Marxism]. It strips the State of the constitutional fraud with which it presents itself to the gullible as the true representative of the whole nation, and, in so doing, exposes its essential character as representative, procurer and policeman of the ruling classes.

"Distrust off reforms, of public power and of delegated authority, can lead to direct action [in the class struggle]. . . It can determine the revolutionary character of this . . . action; and, accordingly, anarchists regard it as the best available means for preparing the masses to manage their own personal and collective interests; and, besides, anarchists feel that even now the working people are fully capable of handling their own political and administrative interests." [The End of Anarchism?, pp. 13-14]

I reject the view that society is static and that people's consciousness, values, ideas and ideals cannot be changed. Far from it and anarchists support direct action because it actively encourages the transformation of those who use it. Direct action is the means of creating a new consciousness, a means of self-liberation from the chains placed around our minds, emotions and spirits by hierarchy and oppression. Therefore, anarchists urge abstentionism in order to encourage activity, not apathy. The reasons why people abstain is more important than the act. The idea that the USA is closer to anarchy because around 50% of people do not vote is nonsense.

Abstentionism in this case is the product of apathy and cynicism, not political ideas. So anarchists recognise that apathetic abstentionism is not revolutionary or an indication of anarchist sympathies. It is produced by apathy and a general level of cynicism at all forms of political ideas and the possibility of change.

Not voting is not enough, and anarchists urge people to organise and resist as well. Abstentionism must be the political counterpart of class struggle, self-activity and self-management in order to be effective.

Source

The Process of Organizational Reconstruction- How the Deaf Action Center of Shreveport reorganized and came out on top.

Developing an organizational structure that will transform an organization to meet the demands of its shareholders is difficult and challenging. One key to this process is communication. “An organization’s long-term survival may best be judged by its ability to manage change rather than by its current balance sheet” (Clampitt & Berk). Most organizations are more than able to crunch numbers and evaluate rates of return than they are capable of effectively measure implemented change efforts.

Here you will find an historical account of a nonprofit in need of reorganization, its challenges, the change model needed, and the changes needed to meet the demands of everyone affected by the change. David Hylan, the Executive Director of the Betty and Leonard Phillips Deaf Action Center in Shreveport Louisiana knew he would need to envision goals and create a new mission statement that would create income revenue from secure grant money as to create a continuum of care for the consumers they served. He understood that many of the consumers were in transition as well. Many were affected by governmental budget cuts to those who are disabled, as were the employees themselves. This article will outline how The Deaf Action Center in Shreveport Louisiana, transformed into a vital organization by reorganizing internally as well as externally.

The Organization

The Deaf Action Center in Shreveport, Louisiana is the only agency of its kind in north Louisiana. Their innovative services are being accessed by other agencies throughout Louisiana and the country. They work with any agency in north Louisiana who requires hearing translation, which includes schools, government, hospitals, and social settings. Being one of the most innovative Deaf services agencies in the country, they rarely face duplication of services. Many programs are unique and are not offered anywhere else in the state and in some cases the nation. In addition to the wonderful service programs the Center now offers, they are continuously evaluating new research data and emerging technologies to develop innovative solutions that directly address their client’s needs.

The Mission Statement

The Mission Statement of a nonprofit organization informs employees, shareholders, vendors, and consumers how it will achieve the organizations mission. There is a tremendous amount of employee buy in when the mission statement is geared towards inspiring those involved (Brueckner, 2012).  The mission of the Deaf Action Center is to serve as a provider of direct services and as a coordinating, cooperative and referral center utilizing the services of otologists, audiologists, counselors, educators and other professional personnel. The Deaf Action Center (DAC), seeks to cooperate with and not compete with, all present agencies and organizations working in the field of deafness and other hearing impairments. It constantly evaluates its own purposes and accomplishments in relationship to the current and future needs of Deaf and hard of hearing persons. It seeks to fill the needs which are not being fully met, as determined by objective evaluations, and/or through technical support, it encourages other agencies or organizations to meet these needs (Hylan).

Issues confronting the Organization

The organization was not in a financial well standing two years ago. Governmental budget cuts in the state of Louisiana had left DAC with nearly a fourth of the budget it has been working with. The closure of the organization was projected to happen by the end of the funding period. Compounded to the fiscal issues, a problem in the region, Louisiana lost 60% of its American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting workforce to migration since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Louisiana interpreters now number only 46 for the whole state. Yet, even before the effects of this loss of skilled interpreters, the National Organization on Disability conducted a 2005 special needs assessment following the Katrina emergency and concluded: “the most underserved group was those who are deaf or hard of hearing.” Having actual people to interpret for the Deaf was a huge crisis in the state (EEPHL, n.d.).

               The Executive Director, David Hylan, decided to diversify and expand services outside of sign language interpretation that were being provided to various entities in the community as well as created an avenue to provide sign language interpretation as well as classes to teach interpreters through video conferencing and webinars. As with most other agencies, the DAC looked for other income outlets. The agency had been providing some American Sign Language training classes via video conferencing as well as some case management to clients, even though there was no actually funding in place to provide these services. It was then David Hylan decided to expand their services to provide webinars across the country to professionals to receive continuing education units (CEUs) which social workers, lawyers, and nurses all need for licensure renewals. The Deaf Action Center realized they would need extensive upgrades to expand services and create a vital income source for the organization. Due to the nature of American Sign Language (ASL) high definition equipment would be needed to offer regularly scheduled webcasts for the Deaf, more live training for interpreters & underemployed or unemployed deaf people. If this goal could be realized, then a viable continuing income source would be established that would be independent from relying on contractual restraints lasting two to five years of foundation grants.

Organizational and Structural Changes

Organizational structure is the base of operational policy development. The structure is responsible for the culture of the organization as well. The DAC found it necessary to change the structure of the organization to become more competitive, especially competing with so many other nonprofits who had suffered huge losses from government funding. The DAC would need to be unique and innovative when competing for foundation grant monies.

The first step was for Hylan to assess the type of change needed. When looking from the inside out, it is not easy to perceive the problem and the magnitude of the change. Those initiating change often underestimate the impact that the change will have.  The upgrades needed to become a full video conferencing studio that needed professional guidance from similar service providers as well as educational needs of the staff. With all participants on board, an urgency was created, and along with it, an excitement for the upcoming change.

People Centered Change

People centered change alters the behavior, skills, and how productive employees are. For there to be people centered processes, communicating, motivating, leading, and interaction within the group must be ongoing (Dougherty, 2002). Hylan encountered a need to change how problems would be solved, the way employees would be educated in new skills, and a reconstruction of employee self perception.

Open communication between the different entities .opened up many questions that would be addressed before making any steps towards such an overwhelming change to the structure of the organization. Some of the questions that would need addressing were:

·       Are the benefits readily observable?

·       Will key relationships be adversely impacted?

·       Is management prepared for employee reactions to change?

Strategic Change

It became evident that to add to an already underfunded over worked operation, it would be necessary to adjust the strategy of the former goals of the organization, including the mission statement, to foster the expansion of the new demands. By doing so, Hylan found himself considering adjusting the fundamental approach to how the DAC was doing business. To expand the presence of the DAC from a local community organization to a nationally respected cutting edge nonprofit, the kinds of products he would have available, how they would be sold would be as far reaching as state and national markets. It would also give partnering organizations the opportunity to provide CEUs in their prospective fields for a fee. This kind of collaboration is gold to prospective grantors. There is nothing a foundation loves more than to see than the money they grant be used as seed money for bigger projects, and become self containing. That is exactly what Hylan did; offer one or two nonprofit agencies an opportunity to buy in by educating their demographics through webinars for a fee to those seeking to earn continuing education units (Clamped & Berk).

Process Oriented (Funding) Change

Expanding the capacity to a continuous revenue source by offering CEUs to professionals, creating the capacity to offer ASL classes online, as well as other webinar services that included English as a Second Language classes to the Deaf, would more than make up for the lost federal grants that had kept the agency afloat for many years. The first step was to research foundations that would provide funding in these areas. Once national and community foundations were identified, the process of application submission and grant writing began.

Create Boundary Crossing Partnerships

The criteria in most grant applications are there has to be evidence of collaborative efforts with other community agencies. This ensures that the work of a nonprofit will have cross beneficially effect with more than just one agency’s demographic. They would be expected to explain the differences and similarities of the DAC to other agencies providing similar services, and they would have to show any efforts undertaken to eliminate duplication of services. Most importantly they would have to be able to eloquently tell the story of not only their mission, but stand above all the other agencies that were battling for an ever decreasing amount of funds. In this economy, even foundations are feeling the effects and are unable to increase the amount they give or continue to give the amounts they had in the past (Chatfield).

Structural

   It was evident there was a need to streamline structures and with that there would be staff changes and changes to the organizational chart. In one case, it was determined there would need to be staff layoffs or the combining of two positions into one. New staff would need to be hired to over see the functions of new equipment if funding for these innovative projects were met through foundation grants. With these new observations, Hylan began restructuring the organizational chart to reflect the changes to the organization’s staff requirements.  

Change Model

There were actually two change models applied to achieving the reorganization of the DAC. Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model was used initially. Midway through the change process the Tipping Change Theory was applied. The first discussion of  the change model will be Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model and the steps taken.

Kotter’s Eight Step Model

Step One: Create an Urgency

The first step Hylan took in the Eight Step Model was to create urgency for change. This began when Hylan tapped into the intellectual capital of the shareholders and employees by brain storming different paths to take when scouting out new income sources. He then went to external forces by inquiring from vendors, sister organizations, and other community agencies to assess and evaluate the needs. According to Kotter, for the change to be successful, 75 percent of the organization needs to buy into the change (Farris, et al, 2009).  Once he accomplished this task, he moved to the second step.

Step Two: Form a Powerful Coalition

To create a powerful coalition, one must convince people that the change in necessary. To accomplish this, strong leadership and support for external and internal forces are needed. Most importantly, change cannot be delegated. Hylan didn’t dispense duties to department heads and expect them to follow through, leadership began with him. He was willing to put as much work into making the change as those he led. His way of leading was to form change coalitions and work as a team.

Step Three: Create a Vision for Change

He created a clear simple vision that could easily be internalized by those affected by the change. To create the vision of change, he determine the values that are central to the change and developed a short simple summary that captured what he saw as the future of the DAC. He then created a strategy to execute that vision. He made sure those involved in the change could describe the vision to ensure they would buy into it and he communicated his "vision speech" often to himself and others.

Step 4: Communicating the Vision

 

Communicating the vision would be determinate of his success. To ensure the vision was properly communicated, Hylan and staff talked about the change vision often. He created an open door policy where honest dialog and concerns were addressed. He applied all aspects of operations to incorporate the vision for change. And most importantly, he led by example.

Step 5: Removing obstacles

Once the vision buy in was complete, obstacles to the change became apparent. He then identified the change leaders and what their roles would be to deliver the change. He then set up a system to recognize and reward people who were making change happen. He then identified those who were resisting and removed barriers to the change.

Step 6: Create Short-term Wins

 

          Nothing motivates more than watching the success of change. One way to do this is to create mini goals and short term wins. Some of the ways the DAC created short term wins was to find sure fire projects that were perceived as non threatening to those who would be critical. The organization grew slowly and did not jump into goal targets that were expensive. As funding came in, the studio grew with better equipment. It slowly evolved and Hylan was able to justify the investment with each project.

Step 7- Build on the Change

Kotter stated that change projects fail because victory is declared too early. Real change runs deep and there are no short cuts to lasting change (Farris, et al, 2009). Hylan did this by analyzing what went right and how to improve the change. He set goals to continue on the path of achievement.

Step 8: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture

           Finally once the achievements toward change were met, he made sure it became part of the organizations culture. He made sure constant efforts to ensure that the change permeated through every aspect of the DAC. By doing this, it gave the change a solid hold in organization's culture.

The Role of the Leader

There are three leadership qualities of leadership, visionary, participant, and transactional which produce effective organizational change (Manz, et al, 1991). When leaders act as advocates for change, they won’t allow the process of change to falter from lack of attention. They are willing to invest their political capital to rally those affected. They must be the role model for those in the organization. They must be the decision maker and take responsibility for those decisions. They must be the voice, motivator, and enforcer. Others in the organization need someone to look up to while processing the change they are going through. A good leader will be assessable to them making the process seem easy.

The Plan to Overcome Barriers

Barriers to implementation include preoccupation with the day to day details, lack of teamwork, conflicting priorities, and funding issues. A good start is implementing a work plan to map out structure and time restraints. One of the strategies that were used at the DAC was an understanding that planning and execution is dependant on success. Execution takes time, especially when grant requirements usually demand evidence based outcomes that must be documented over time. Once those figures were in place, Hylan was able to reach out for funding in the private sector. The “tipping point” theory of change was implemented,, which means even with improvements that appear to be small and functions needed to empower consumers, they were able to serve more people with greater outcomes, financially as well as the quality of services with enormous impact that reached not only those who require our services locally, but also be a model for other agencies to implement when fulfilling their mission statements.

Conclusion

With these change theories in place, various foundation grant providers have given of over $1,000,000 since the financial crisis two years ago. The funding received has provided new jobs for professionals in this field, as well as acted as seed money for a lasting revenue source without outside assistance. Over the last year, just webinars alone, has generated nearly $60,000 in a year, not counting various classes via the web. As a community project and grant requirement, DAC has offered the use of the facility to other nonprofits to offer CEUs as an income generator. It is what grant givers dream of in a nonprofit organization. And here today is the final product of his and the organizations efforts. The video capibilities are exception and down right fancy.

References:

Brueckner, T. K. (2012). The importance of mission buy-in by staff and clients. Senior Market

Advisor, , n/a-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/963393279?accountid=32521

Chatfield, M. (n.d.). Self-Directed and Self-Managed Teams. http://www.imetacomm.com. Retrieved September 10, 2012, from http://www.irism.com/selfteam.htm

Clampett, F., & Berk, L. (n.d.). Strategically Communicating Organizational Change. iMetacomm. Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://www.imetacomm.com/otherpubs/pdf_doc_downloads/strat_commg_org_change_v5.pdf

Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product

innovation. Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 13, 77-77. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/231179375?accountid=32521

Emergency Planning for People with Hearing Loss. (n.d.). http://www.hearinglossweb.com.

Retrieved September 10, 2012, from

http://www.hearinglossweb.com/Issues/EmergPlan/emerg_plan.htm

Farris, K. B., PhD., Demb, A., Janke, K. K., PhD., Kelley, K., & Scott, S. A., PharmD. (2009).

Assessment to transform competency-based curricula. American Journal of

Pharmaceutical Education, 73(8), 1-158. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/211313601?accountid=32521

Hylan, D. (n.d.). The Deaf Action Center - About us. The Deaf Action Center.

Retrieved September 10, 2012, from http://www.deafactioncenter.org/

Manz, C., Bastien, D., & Hostager, T. (1991). Executive leadership during organizational

change: A bi-cycle model. HR.Human Resource Planning, 14(4), 275-275. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224591172?accountid=32521

Charismatic Leaders: Wonderful or Dangerous? BUS660

Heroic military leaders are a perfect study group that can show us the nature of charismatic leadership. 

Che Guevara stands out as one of those leaders who possess charm, intelligence, and inspires others  to get on board and follow. El Che is considered an authority figure who put his life in jeopardy to lead others to a better life. He is considered the ultimate freedom fighter to many South American countries as well as abroad in Russia, France, and Africa.

Che Guevara not only was a handsome man, but when he spoke, could move those that heard him, be inspired to fight against injustices that the poor endured by those in power. In military terms, Guevara was the epitome of a romantic tragic martyr that quickly became iconic to those who fight injustice in the world. Military defeat can sometimes become a cultural victory and that is exactly what happened in the making of Che Guevara’s place in history.

A photo that was taken of him standing next to Fidel Castro after defeating the bloody Batista regime in Cuba is the most duplicated image in the world. In the myth making of Guevara, he is now perceived as a Christ like figure. As one of his modern day followers is quoted from the documentary, Chevolution, “Che is a hero to many because he resisted a truly ugly system, remained true to his ideals, and conveniently died before the Revolution’s slow, pathetic demise became apparent to nearly everyone“ (Tutor, n.d.). Of course his memory does not take on the role to some who found his ideals were to be resisted. Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism offers an intense iconoclastic critique when he was quoted as saying, “The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster.” Needless to say, Che’s image can be found the world over as the symbol of freedom of oppression and the symbol of rejecting worldly excess and the values of those resisting injustice in the world (Tutor, n.d.).

On the other hand, some of the most evil men to rise to power got to their position because  they were charismatic. One of the most evil authoritarian leaders ever to live was Pol Pot. Pol. Pot oversaw the brutal deaths of over a million Cambodians in the 1970s. His horrendous crimes were against his own people. Pol Pot has been described as a leader that is worse than Hitler and a genocidal maniac. The blood baths occurred so that he could push forward his ideology of collectivist agrarian utopia on an unwilling nation. Its hard to understand how someone has evil can fool those who follow him. His own people did not remove him from power that was exposed to the world in 1979. He continued to rule until his death in 1998. Pol Pot's entrance onto Cambodia political landscape was inspired by the desire to bring about such social and political changes to benefit the poor masses. Pol Pot's speech as "harmonious and persuasive; he used examples skillfully. He made himself easy to like (Chandler, 1999). In the end, it was evident he was a much worse than those before him and used speech to persuade his followers he would make their lives better than before. His love for ultimate power resulted in the deaths of more than a million compatriots, one in seven Cambodians, in less than four years.

References

 Chandler, David P. Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1999. 

Hughes, R.L. & Ginnett, R.C. & Curphy, G.J. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing the

Lessons of Experience (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. ISBN: 9780073405049 

Tutor, J. (n.d.). Che Guevara was the ultimate charismatic leader.