All Posts

There is usually one. Sometimes two. Everyone can name them within about four seconds and nobody will say the name first.

An engagement score of 74 is not a description of anything. It is the average of a 91 and a 52, and the two groups producing those numbers work for the same organization, follow the same handbook, and receive the same all staff emails. One of them is thriving. The other is in trouble and has been for some time. The 74 makes both of them invisible, and the 74 is what gets presented to the board. I spent years reading organizational numbers as though the organization were the u

Data is not what is missing. Willingness is what is missing, and no instrument on the market measures that one.

The second survey tells you more than the first one ever did. Not because the questions improved. Because by the second survey, your workforce has evidence about what happens to an answer. I have watched this from both chairs. I have been the executive who commissioned the survey and I am now the person organizations hire to run one, which means I have seen the full life cycle of an honest answer more times than is comfortable. The pattern does not vary much. The first survey

Organizations under strain reach for communication because it is the fastest thing available. The budget is frozen. Caseloads went up. Two positions have been open for five months and the people covering them stopped treating it as temporary a long time ago. Leadership knows all of this. Leadership also knows the structural fix requires money, or a reorganization, or a funder conversation that will not conclude for two quarters. So leadership sends a message about resilience.

You are not the last person to speak. Whatever you send from the executive level gets read once, possibly, and then it gets translated. Someone in a supervisor role stands in front of a team at a shift huddle and explains what it means. That explanation is the version that lands. Yours is a source document. I did not take this seriously for a long time. I assumed the org chart described how information moved. It describes how authority moves. Information moves through whoever

Every time you decide what to say, how much of it to say, when to say it, and who hears it first, you are running something through a filter. What gets included. What gets held back. What gets softened. What waits until the answer is complete.

It said that leadership was committed to transparency. It said that we wanted to hear from people. It said that my door was open. Nothing happened. Not nothing in the sense of hostility. Nothing in the sense of nothing. Three people replied with a thumbs up. One thanked me for the update. The rest of the organization read it, absorbed it, and went back to whatever they had been doing before it arrived. I spent about a week telling myself it was a timing problem. Then I stoppe

Burnout is not what happens to people who care too much. It is what happens when the conditions of the work make caring unsustainable. That distinction is not semantic. It determines where the intervention goes. If burnout is a personal capacity problem, the response is resilience training, a wellness portal, and a reminder to use PTO. If burnout is an organizational output, the response belongs at the conditions producing it, and the wellness portal is a way of telling exhau

Nobody warns you that a promotion can cost you your professional identity. We warn people about the workload. We warn them about the difficulty of supervising former peers. We hand them a benefits packet, a systems login, and a supervision schedule, and we treat the transition as an operational event. What we almost never name is the part that actually destabilizes people. The thing they were good at is no longer the thing they do. A counselor who was excellent with clients b

The clearest organizational design document I have ever read was written by people who were not trying to design an organization. They were trying to keep groups of desperate people from destroying each other. The Twelve Traditions were written in the 1940s, after the fellowship that produced them had already watched groups collapse. Money disputes. Personality battles. Groups that took on so many causes they forgot the one thing they existed to do. The Traditions are not asp

Accountability in most organizations has a direction. It goes down. Watch how it actually operates. A frontline employee is late three times and there is a form for that. The supervisor who never built a workable schedule produced the lateness, and there is no form for that. The director whose shifting priorities created the missed deadline sits in the meeting where the missed deadline is discussed, and the entire conversation is about the person who missed it. We call this a

Every organization has an official story. It lives in the annual report. In the website copy. In the remarks the executive director gives at the gala. It is the story of where the organization came from, what it stands for, and where it is going. It is a good story. Often it is a true story. It is also almost never the story the staff tells. David Boje, whose research on organizational storytelling shapes a significant part of how I think about climate work, described organiz

High first-year turnover is a climate problem. And treating it as a hiring problem is one of the most expensive mistakes a nonprofit organization can make.

Every organization I have ever entered has values on a wall somewhere. Integrity. Compassion. Collaboration. Excellence. Community. The words change. The fonts change. The colors match the brand. And the gap between those words and what actually happens inside the building is almost always the same size: large enough to fall into, small enough that nobody wants to name it. This is not a cynical observation. It is a structural one. Values are aspirational. Climate is operation

In behavioral health, an intervention is not something you do to someone. It is something you do with someone who is inside a system they cannot see clearly from the inside. You enter. You observe. You name what is happening. And then, carefully and with accountability, you help change it.

The leaders who last in this sector are not the ones with the most resources. They are the ones who understood early that they were responsible for two organizations, and who refused to let the invisible one fall apart while they managed the one on paper.

Your best people are the first to leave, and that is not a coincidence. It is a diagnosis. Leaders tend to read a strong performer's exit as bad luck or better money elsewhere. Sometimes it is. More often it is the clearest signal you will ever get about your climate, and it is a signal you are reading backward. Here is the mechanism. Your best people have the most options. They are also the most attuned to the gap between what an organization could be and what it is. They se

Behavioral health is one of the hardest environments to lead in. The work is emotionally heavy. The funding is unstable. The people you serve are often in crisis, and the people you employ are often one hard month away from their own. Turnover is brutal. Burnout is constant. Secondary trauma is real and rarely named. If you can build a healthy climate in that environment, you can build one anywhere.

Mission is the most overused management tool in the nonprofit sector. It is also the least honest one. Every leader in this field has reached for it. The budget is tight, the hours are long, the pay is below market, and somewhere in a hard conversation a version of this sentence comes out: remember why we do this work. It is true. It is also, when it becomes a pattern, a way of asking people to absorb the cost of problems leadership has not solved. I call this purpose fatigue