Although everyone always hopes and believes that their plan or program will succeed, at some point, there comes a time when it's time to cut one's losses, and admit that it might be preferable to go in a different direction.
Unfortunately, many leaders either give up on a program or plan too soon, or stick with it too long.
Both scenarios generally prove unwise and unproductive, often becoming extremely expensive errors.
One of the glaring examples I have observed of sticking with something too long is often certain leader's desire to "stick with" their paid staff, Executive Director, or Management Company, too long.
I have heard leaders say that they don't want to be blamed for making a bad decision in hiring the individual or group in the first place.
When I hear this type of statement, I realize that I am dealing with a volunteer leader who has never been adequately trained in leadership, and the realities of leadership and management.
I ask these individuals how long should one stick with someone or a group that "just doesn't get it," and doesn't get it done.
I wonder how many more mistakes, or failures by either inaction or error or omission need to occur before action will finally be taken.
If these individuals were trained properly, they would know that there should always be a "trial" or "probation" period with any new hire.
Every task assigned, and every expectation stated, should be written and fully communicated.
Whenever a task is unsatisfactorily performed, it is the responsibility of leadership to inform staff of its displeasure, and "demand" a timetable for accomplishing the task in a satisfactory matter.
If the staff member or management company are contracted, leadership must be fully informed and familiar with all the responsibilities, as well as the possible areas of recourse, to resolve the situation.
This is not to say that leaders should be "gunning" for staff, or searching for errors.
Rather, it means that if, repeatedly, over a reasonable period (reasonable meaning long enough period to fairly judge), the staff member does not seem to perform as needed, some action must be taken.
Repeatedly, I have observed leaders complain about staff performance, and then assign additional tasks to the staff, when the leader needs something done properly.
Einstein has been credited with saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, an anticipating different results.
Einstein may have been observing many volunteer leaders when motivated to make that statement.
Volunteer leaders must evaluate programs on an ongoing basis.
All estimates must be predicated on conservative estimates for revenue, and worst case scenarios for expenses.
Is this program viable? Is this program valuable? Is this program meaningful? Is this program, as presently designed, effective? Is there an alternative way of achieving the desired results, more effectively? Many organizations appear to view the budget process as an "exercise," and not something hard and fast.
They simply carry-over programs and line items from one year to another, often simply adjusting by a certain percentage.
However, those organizations, and the leadership of those organizations are making a huge error in judgment.
Most organizations, especially small to medium sized ones, should use "zero- based budgeting" and view each line item as something that must be evaluated related to specific criteria that meets the evolving needs and makeup of an organization.
I find it unbelievable that when I have asked leaders why something is done in a specific matter, I have often been told because that's the way the organization has been doing it for many years, and we think it works.
Leaders who do not evaluate and re-evaluate, and compare alternatives should not be leaders.
Once again, this often occurs because so many organizations do not properly train their leaders!