What is Stewardship? Steward Leadership?

Posted by Matthew Thomas

 
 
Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2.jpgReaders of this blog may have noticed the frequent attention paid to the term "Steward Leadership." In our work with leaders and businesses throughout the country and around the world, we find that a stewardship stance toward business makes a profound difference in that business' success on all levels. Without a strong sense of stewardship, businesses might still grow big and make lots of money, but their overall success as a business falters. That's why we find steward leadership so essential for organizations and their leaders as they transform for a vibrant future.

What do we mean by Stewardship?

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! Stewardship is an increasingly-used term that may still be more familiar in the non-profit and faith-based organizational world than it is in business. Stewardship derives from the concept that we are given something (owned by someone else) to manage on their behalf and make it fruitful or profitable for the owner, or expend it according to the owner's terms to the beneficiaries the owners have designated.

Non-Owners 

For those of us who are executives or managers who don't own an interest in the business we work in, this stewardship concept translates quite directly to the work we do: we work on behalf of an owner or owners to make it fruitful or profitable for the owners, or expend the resources we are given according to the owners' terms to benefit the owners' purpose.

Owners 

For those of us who own our businesses (or part of our businesses), we take the concept of stewardship one more step forward. For us, we must, at minimum, approach our business as being a part of a shared world. The resources we consume came from someplace before us, and as we transform them or consume them, what is left behind will be left for someone else. This stewardship focuses on stewardship of our world: we are not the only people or creatures here, and we must keep everyone else's (and everything else's) interests well in mind.

Many steward leaders take one step beyond this to focus on how what they have they received from others, and they owe duty and gratitude to those who provided them with everything from their first job to their first big break to even their very lives. This stewardship focuses on paying it forward: we received benefit we want to amplify and pass on to others.

Some steward leaders focus on indirect stewardship: by investing in something that does not have an immediate monetary return (such as education grants, and so on), they are creating long-term benefit for themselves and others.

Some steward leaders focus on how their client or customer focus drives their business, and they must steward their customers' goodwill, experience, and the value the customers receive. It's not theirs, but they are entrusted to manage it. This aligns very closely with some of the non-profit approaches to stewardship.

Still other steward leaders focus on a more traditional sense of stewardship: that everything we have has come from  outside of ourselves and is owned by a being greater than ourselves. Often this can have religious, new age, or recovery community overtones. Like the others, this creates a sense of altruism in business. This sense of stewardship is often the most comprehensive, since it delineates that someone else owns everything a person touches - including their very life.

Common Characteristic 

That being said, all of these approaches to stewardship share the common characteristic that we are managing something that is not fully ours because others have a say in how it gets used, expended, or grown. All of these are approaches to being a steward leader who can do good in the community and the world while doing well. And that, in a nutshell, is a strong driver of the kinds of steward leadership in business we see that leads to success.

 


For more on organizational leadership, read Mark L. Vincent's fable, Wise Owl & Young Buck.

Wise Owl & Young Buck

 


 

 

 
 
 
 
.
Read More ›

Topics: steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, steward leadership

Steward Leaders: On Being Good Stewards of Anger

Posted by Matthew Thomas

 
 
Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2.jpgA few weeks ago, a particularly monochromatic vessel for a typically-caffeinated beverage from a particular nationally-known dispenser of such beverages made the news. First, it made the news because someone was outraged by the vessel's blankness. Shortly thereafter, it made news because many others were outraged that someone would be outraged in the first place. Finally, there was outrage that the outrage about the outrage had carried on so long, and was so pointless.

 

As leaders, we quickly discover that anger is a powerful tool - as well as a disruptive presence. Our own anger can rally others to our cause - particularly when our anger resonates with others'; our own anger can create space between us and those who oppose us as well. Anger and outrage give us the simultaneous power of push and pull, as well as, in many cases, some kind of moral high ground.

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! In American political discourse of late, we see outrage used by leaders of all branches and levels of government, both in the election process and while in office. Outrage has become a competitive sport - who can be the most outraged about what, and say or do the most outrageous thing to bring their outrage to light. Outrage polarizes and partisanizes, and then becomes outraged at the gridlock that results.

 

Our workplaces are often conflicted - "office politics", some cry; others have a management-union split; still others bring political, philosophical, family, or religious conflicts into the workplace. These can generate anger and contention among workers that reduces our organizational capacity to meet our goals.

 

(Related: Doing Good While Doing Well)

 

Left unchecked, anger, outrage, and rage devour everything in their path - and often violently. Feeding on them isolates people into smaller and smaller units - even dividing people against their own selves.

 

Steward leadership urges us to steward anger as well. Anger is both natural and powerful. It can be channeled to accomplish good things. It is firmly an appropriate emotional response to injustice. That's where the moral high ground comes in.

 

Anger separates, drains, and exhausts. Its only sustenance is finding something else to consume and push away. As steward leaders, we find ways to use anger creatively to motivate toward healthy, sustainable action - not just to draw others into a malevolent maelstrom. We find ways of using anger to put an end to violence, rather than turning violence toward others.

 

These days, we hear little of virtue - the term itself seems a bit Quixotic to our ears. Yet, with the need to steward anger, it seems apt. Plato's civic virtues: prudence, courage, temperance, and justice (Republic IV.427e) all, in their own way, help us steward anger. Prudence, or wisdom, helps us to choose what really should motivate us to action. Courage, as Plato says, helps us choose what should and should not be feared (ibid., IV, 430b). Temperance makes sure we are not just driven by our desires, but our desires driven by our will. Justice leads us to true judgement and reconciliation, not just using (self-) righteous indignation as a proxy for making things right.

 

Perhaps these virtues are the missing piece to what to do with all of our outrage.

 

I'm curious to see how you steward anger in your organization. How do you manage the use of virtue? If you wouldn't mind, e-mail me  and let me know how you see anger, and virtue at work.

 

We'd also like to provide you with a resource describing the balance of decision-making process: more reflective, or more active? Which way do you tend?

Tao of action-reflection, primer on process

 
 
 
 
.
Read More ›

Topics: steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, steward leadership, virtue, Anger, Starbucks cup controversy

Steward Leadership: Financial reports and their roles

Posted by Matthew Thomas

 
 
Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2Let's face it: the basic accounting reports generated by most accounting systems show where funds came in and where they went out; they show the balances on accounts; they show cash flow vs. revenue and expenses. All of these things look at what happened. This is important and essential information for determining whether something went as planned. It is also essential information for steward leaders to use to create new plans and generate projections as to what something might look like as the enterprise moves forward.

 

But reports that make the most sense to accountants and translate well onto tax forms and accounting systems aren't always the best reports to use to govern, develop strategy, manage, or procedurally maintain the work of an enterprise. For enterprises that have constituencies and stakeholders - and not just shareholders, owners, workers, and customers - reports must also make sense to what that audience needs.

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! For those in the governance and oversight roles of an enterprise - or even ownership role - traditional accounting reports tend to encourage leaders to govern by looking backwards into what was done, rather than forward into what is going to be done. Many times, these reports lead people into discussions of what should have been or what could have been, not into what can and should be done moving forward.

 

As the typical investment fund prospectus says, "past performance does not guarantee future results." Governance reports must spend appropriate time looking ahead, projecting revenues and expenses, cash flow and the overall business model's sustainability.

 

The traditional accounting reports are best classed as management reports. These reports help day-to-day management of funds according to budgets, purpose, and categories.  Nevertheless, even still, they often do not reflect the trends that most managers need to know. Typically, managers, too, need to look ahead, rather than behind. Looking behind only serves them insofar as they are able to hold others accountable and project forward toward goals. Depending on their level of management, some managers are more strategically-oriented, while others are more tactically-oriented. Good steward leadership suggests that these differing roles may require different reports.

 Get the   Five Types of Governance   resource today!

Finally, for those working in the financial procedural roles, many of the more technical accounting reports make the most sense to them: trial balances, vendor activity reports, and so on. The more typical accounting reports help them to see that everything is in good order before generating more strategic and analytical reports.

 

Design Group International's Financial Services Roles tool can help steward leaders determine which roles require which reports to best accomplish the enterprise's goals. The tool is free, and it may be downloaded by clicking the button below. 

Financial Roles Get the map!

 
 
 
 
.
Read More ›

Topics: steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, Financial Reporting, steward leadership, Financial roles

Steward Leadership: Power and Character

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2.jpgAs I was growing up, people often told me that character was "what you do when nobody's looking." The typical examples were stealing something trifling, cheating at a game, or bullying a kid when the adults weren't around. Since these are things we know that some adults still struggle with, it's true that this demonstrates a degree of character.

 

Nevertheless, these days, I think it's more than that: today, I would say that character is what we do when we have power. Do we play to people's base fears and prejudices, or do we create space for learning and cooperation? How do we treat those who are less powerful than we - even those who are powerless? Do we recognize the advantages and privileges our power gives us, and use that awareness to leverage them on behalf of others? Or do we subject others to scrutiny that we would not want to have put on ourselves, were the shoe on the other foot?

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! When we find ourselves with the power to hire and fire, we hold great power over a person's - and often a family's - well-being. If we have the authority to arrest, detain, use lethal force, prosecute, or pronounce sentence, we hold even the power of life and death over others. Something as merely human and common as parenting involves a power relationship - one under constant refinement, negotiation, and growth. Thus, merely crossing the threshold into legal adulthood itself holds a degree of power.

 

Voting - as well as abstention from voting - whether in political elections or in the boardroom, is commonly top of mind as an expression of power, but it is not anywhere near the most common. I see three as much more common:

 

  • There is a power relationship between those traveling by automobile or truck and those traveling by most other means on the same road. (As a distance runner, I am keenly aware of who loses in an encounter with a motorized vehicle.)
  • Holding financial assets, often alongside higher incomes, grants significant power to act and to control.
  • Appearance is another: the freedom to carry oneself as one pleases, and act as one pleases, based in physical attractiveness, style of dress, grooming habits, or race/ethnicity/gender, is power that is not available to all in any society.

 

These power relationships are expressed far more often than voting (or abstention).

 

(Related: Doing Good While Doing Well)

 

As steward leaders of organizations, we probably already realize all of this. And self-awareness of our power, and the privileges it grants us, takes us a long way toward using power with character and integrity. So what do we do with our power? The fact that most of us do not become petty tyrants at home, in business, in office, and in our communities speaks to the stuff we are made of. I have seen many handle power well. Here are some marks of those who hold power with character:

 

  1. Courtesy. Falling into the "just because we can doesn't mean we should" category, courtesy acknowledges both our own power and another's dignity. It builds relationships and holds power in reserve.
  2. Attentiveness. Listening goes a long way. I have often heard it said that the first thing to go when someone gets power is their hearing. This is particularly the case when we have to listen to someone outside the "in-group", the inner circle, or even from an opposition party or enemy. Maintaining the ability to listen and nuance response expresses character with power.
  3. Acknowledgement. Having the humility to both acknowledge our own mistakes and champion the contributions of our team (and even of those who opposed us but whom we want to work with) reinforces courtesy and attentiveness to begin to truly lead, instead of merely controlling and manipulating.

 

So "What you do when you're alone" still fits the definition of character as the use of power, because secrecy holds power itself. But it isn't the whole story: power is where we really see what we are made of. In a news cycle full of the sound bites from leaders and candidates and memes on social media of who wants to do what to whom makes us more reflective. What kind of people do we want to be?

 

E-mail Matt Thomas

 


Design Group International has a resource for those in the action-reflection cycle. Check out the Tao of Action Reflection today!

Tao of action-reflection, primer on process

 

.
Read More ›

Topics: leadership, steward leaders, steward leader, steward leadership

Steward Leaders: [Non-profit Myths 6] Founders Control Boards

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

Since the end of September, we have been talking about the non-profit economy, and common myths operate within the public perception of non-profits. We've looked at the "free" business model as not just pertaining to non-profits. We have looked at six big myths: We have looked at "making money", and non-profits' responsibility for taxes. We've looked at how a non-profit can own a for-profit business. We looked at the deductibility of donations to non-profits. Last time around, we talked about how non-profits aren't the only organizations that can be designed to make the world a better place: "regular" businesses can, too.

Today, we address the sixth, and final, myth of this series. This myth is the myth of the permanent founder. Let's look at an example to see where this comes in to play.

A small group of colleagues and friends get together to form a non-profit to bring attention and solutions to a cause they care about. The most vocal spokesperson for the group becomes the Executive Director (ED); the rest become members of the Board. All of them contribute funds, time, and expertise to the non-profit. In compliance with best practices for non-profits, the ED is not a member of the Board, but present at all board meetings, with voice, but without vote.

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! All goes well for the first five years. By that point, the non-profit is up and running, and some of the original board members have begun to rotate off the board, bringing on new voices.

One of the new members of the Board sees an opportunity that they think the non-profit should take advantage of; the ED sees things otherwise - that this would be mission creep, a loss of priorities, etc.  A disagreement breaks out between the Board and the ED. 

The ED believes he is right, and because he gave of his own money to start the non-profit, feels slighted that the Board would de-prioritize one of the key aspects of the original vision, and move in a different direction. He pushes back on the board by talking to the remaining original members, and tries to get the new measure voted down.

The new measure passes, but the ED isn't done. He says this is a mistake, and that this violates the founding principles of the non-profit. (He had helped to select some of the very board members who now oppose him.) He urges those who disagree with him to step down. One does, and the board reverses course.

A few more years pass, and a similar situation emerges: this time, though it's the other way around. The ED has a new opportunity he wants to press. The Board sees things otherwise - that this would be mission creep, a loss of priorities, etc.  A disagreement breaks out between the Board and the ED. The ED believes he is right, and because he gave of his own money to start the non-profit, and continues to give heart and soul, underpaid, for the cause, feels slighted that the Board doesn't see this new opportunity as the natural result of the expanding vision. Once again, the ED pushes the board to see things his way. Most just put their heads down. Others drag their feet. One person begins active opposition to the ED.

The conflict drags on, and eventually a conflict management mediator is called in. They develop a set of mutually-agreed-upon priorities and procedures. But the founding ED sees this as appeasement, and begins to push back. The board, now emboldened by the mediation work, chooses to end their relationship with the ED and fire him - with a generous severance package (after all, they still like and respect him). They have decided it is time for a fresh start.

The ED is stunned. Never in a million years, he says, would he have thought this would have happened. The board is grieved, the cause is set back, and the ED, chastened, finds a new job eventually.

 

The myth that a founder can control a board, and therefore, dictate the terms of his or her own position, as well as who can be on the board and how they will vote, is built upon the experience of many when they deal with newly-established non-profits. Oftentimes, these are the dynamics that emerge. The founder is such a strong personality (as entrepreneurs must have) that the conflict seems all but inevitable. Most times, the board ends up getting more-or-less handpicked by the founder, and things maintain a sort of quasi-stasis for a long time. The founder outlasts many cycles of board members.

 (Related: Organizational Governance and the Bully in the Boardroom)

In the heady days of establishing a new organization to fill a need and promote a cause, it's hard to take the time to step back and get all the organizing documents and structures right. Design is not at the top of the mind, as form follows function. Nevertheless, good design from the outset can help dispel this myth that the founder can control a non-profit (much like the founder of a business might).

Designing roles into the first days of a non-profit reminds everyone that they are stewards of the cause, rather than owners. No one individual may privately gain from, or control a non-profit. Even when the founding board members and Executive Directors give deeply of themselves, that does not create the entitlement to control down the road. That just means they gave more than they were willing to give freely in those early days. Or perhaps they gave it freely in those days, but then began to feel used as the giving kept on going, perhaps with less enthusiasm. Whatever the case, good accountability and boundaries from the outset, designed into practices, attitudes, procedures, vision, and alignment can help avoid the rough scenario outlined above. That way, founders can do what they are good at: start things. Boards can do what they are good at: steadying things.

No one owns a non-profit; all are stewards. The myths we discussed over the past few weeks, we hope, will help steward leaders understand the dynamics of non-profits, whether they are part of one or view them from the outside.

 


 

What's your organization's story? I'd love to hear it. Feel free to call me at 1.877.771.3330 x20 or e-mail me by clicking the button.

E-mail Matt Thomas

.
Read More ›

Topics: myth, nonprofit sector, steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, non-profits, non-profit, steward leadership

Steward Leaders: [Non-profit Myths 5] Making the World a better place

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

One of the most significant myths we often encounter is that people who want to make the world a better place have to find work in the non-profit or public sectors of the economy.

 

Over the past several weeks, we have looked at some myths that operate within the public perception of non-profits. We've looked at how the "free" business model does not just pertain to non-profits. We have looked at "making money", and non-profits' responsibility for taxes. We've looked at how a non-profit can own a for-profit business. Last time around, we looked at the deductibility of donations to non-profits.

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! So do people who want to make the world a better place have to work in the non-profit or public sectors of the economy? Are careers in businesses and corporations somehow incapable of doing so, or work at cross-purposes to bettering our communities?

 

Increasingly, we are seeing businesses and corporations driven by mission and purpose beyond profit. These businesses seek to make the world a better place, invest in their communities, and contribute to causes that share their values - even while doing well for themselves. Some even establish their own non-profits to carry out some of their charitable work.

 

(Related: Non-profits that own for-profit businesses.)

 

The main difference between non-profits and businesses with this social enterprise bent is where the profits go on an annual basis or at the winding down of the company. Regular businesses deliver profits to their shareholders and are responsible to do so within the terms of the company's operating agreement. Non-profits are required to reinvest any surpluses into the non-profit for the furtherance of its mission.

 

Both types of company - "regular" businesses and non-profits - can benefit their communities through the way they treat their employees, customers, clients, vendors, and the resources they acquire and sell. Both types of company can express their values by what sorts of work they do (and won't do), and how they respond to the challenges they face.

 

So why choose a non-profit structure for business, versus a "regular" business or corporation?

 

Non-profits do well when any, or a combination of the following are in play:

 

  1. The business model to deliver services requires donor funding.
  2. The business model fits within one or more of the charitable purposes for which non-profits may be organized.
  3. The organization will be able to leverage more resources toward its cause by not providing profits to shareholders and by reinvesting surpluses into the continued mission of the organization.
  4. The perception or reality that making money off of providing a particular service or product is somehow unethical, even though that product or service is needed to further a charitable cause.

 

Alternatively, a business that has a social end in mind might want to organize as a "regular" business instead of a non-profit if any, or a combination of the following are in play:

 

  1. In order to achieve the social or charitable ends, the company must develop assets that could provide more resources to the cause if they could be profitably monetized. For instance, the patent royalties received for selling medical devices in Western Europe might provide the funding for charity medical care in medically underserved areas in Europe or on other continents, while also funding further research and development. (See also this article from Harvard Business Review.)
  2. The cause is not explicitly charitable, even if it will still make the world better (do a job, solve a problem, cause people to gain something intrinsically valuable), and even if it will strengthen charitable causes.
  3. The owners need to realize their investment in order to make a living and/or move the cause forward.

 

Note that these contrasting points say nothing about "just in it for the money" over against altruism or holy-mindedness. Both approaches can provide ways for people who desire to steward resources and better the world to go about achieving those ends.

 

What kind of world-bettering organization are you in? How is it set up? I'd love to hear your story.

 

Contact me by clicking the button below.

How can we help?   Connect with Matt Thomas!

.
Read More ›

Topics: nonprofit sector, steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, non-profits, non-profit, steward leadership

Steward Leaders: [Non-profit Myths 4] Tax-Deductible Donations

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

Not every dollar given to a non-profit is necessarily tax-deductible.

 

Over the past few weeks, we have looked at some myths that operate within the public perception of non-profits. We've looked at the "free" business model as not just pertaining to non-profits. We have looked at six big myths. We have looked at "making money", and non-profits' responsibility for taxes. We've looked at how a non-profit can own a for-profit business.

 

Today we turn to a myth that is, perhaps, less complicated than the rest.

 

Not every dollar given to a non-profit is necessarily tax-deductible.

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! Essentially, there are two cases where donor dollars aren't entirely tax-deductible:

 

  1. Funds will be used for political lobbying purposes; and
  2. The value of a contribution for which goods and/or services are received.

 

For instance, if a donor attends a dinner to raise funds for a cause, typically the receipt will say that the value of the meal is a specific price, and the remainder of the ticket price is a contribution to the cause.

 

These are really the only two cases people commonly encounter. As long as one or both of those two things aren't in play, every dollar contributed to a non-profit is eligible for a tax deduction by the donor.

 

Nevertheless, contributions of $250.00 or more by cash or check still require contemporaneous documentation by the charity to the donor for to maintain an adequate IRS-valid paper trail for the deduction. Non-profits do well to keep their receipts regular and timely so that donors for whom the deduction is valuable continue to give.

 

(Related: Why clean financial reports are essential.)

 

As a donor, how do you handle tax deductions? As a non-profit leader, how do you manage donor deductions? I'd love to hear your story. Click the button below and we can set up a time to talk.

How can we help?   Connect with Matt Thomas!

.
Read More ›

Topics: myth, nonprofit sector, steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, non-profits, non-profit, steward leadership

Steward Leadership: Financial roles that lead financial change

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2Leading change to bring about greater financial health in an enterprise will likely involve different people in different roles at different levels of the organization. Often, changes that lead to greater financial health are a complex of adaptive and technical changes - changes that require very different things from different people and groups within the enterprise. Adaptive changes require new learning and paradigm shifts in thinking. Technical changes involve new techniques and methods to change procedures, processes, programs, and products.

 

The more complex and adaptive the changes are, the more often that change must be led from closer to the top of the organization. Nevertheless, it is possible to lead change from any place in an organization. Any one of an enterprise's roles can lead change by working with peers, superiors and subordinates to the extent that the enterprise's structure allows. Steward leadership balances the need for change with the enterprise's capacity for that change.

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! Any change worth making encounters resistance. Leading change in an enterprise's financial health is no exception. The type of resistance will depend on the type of change and the steward leader's place and role in the organization. Technical changes proposed by leaders in technical roles often meet the least resistance; the more adaptive the change, the more resistance occurs above and below the steward leader who guides it. As resistance occurs, it is essential to see that as information to build toward the change, rather than assume the resisters are somehow fundamentally flawed.

 Get the   Five Types of Governance   resource today!

As you examine your role as a steward leader in your enterprise, how might you lead change to improve your organizational outcomes - including financial health?

 

Design Group International's Financial Services Roles tool can help you determine what changes would best be led by which leaders in your enterprise. The tool is free and shows what types of  changes typically can come from what roles in any given enterprise. Click the link below to get your tool today!

Financial Roles Get the map!

.
Read More ›

Topics: adaptive change, steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, adaptive leadership, steward leadership, Financial roles

Steward Leaders: The Story we tell with cost and value

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

When deciding whether we want to buy something new - whether a product or a service - we tend to take one of two approaches: cost or value. These approaches tell different stories.

 

A cost approach focuses on what something takes to obtain it.

 

A value approach focuses on what something provides us when we obtain it.

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! When we hear ourselves focusing on how expensive something is, or saying "we don't have the money," we have focused on cost, and determined that the value proposed by the product or service is not worth the cost.

 

When we compare prices against features, and decide what is the most important that will allow us to do, be, or feel what we want, then we are focused on value.

 

Steward leaders work hard to balance these two approaches - nevertheless, steward leaders drive toward value, since decisions based in value will have a greater positive impact on their organization than decisions based solely in cost. Value puts our actions in context, and therefore offers us a story to tell. Cost merely tells the story of expense. 

 

What stories do you tell? I'd love to hear them. 

How can we help?   Connect with Matt Thomas!

.
Read More ›

Topics: steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, steward leadership, organizational story

Steward Leadership of financial roles: hire internally or externally?

Posted by Matthew Thomas

Subscribe to  Sustainable Vision

matthew-thomas-2Once your enterprise has defined its financial roles, steward leadership offers a variety of choices in how to staff those roles in practice. Most organizations require some combination of staff, contractors and vendors to fill their full complement of financial roles. Only rarely (and in the largest organizations) can all roles be filled by staff within the company.

 

When determining what roles may (or must) be staffed, contracted, or provided through vendors, there are a number of questions steward leaders ask:

 

  1. What is our enterprise's capacity? In other words, what can we handle on our own where we have the expertise, time, energy, and passion?
  2. What roles can be combined or divided into full-time-equivalent positions?
  3. Where does having an outside contractor add expertise, security, oversight, or other benefits that could not occur internally?
  4. What vendors do we require for software, banking, payroll, and so on?
  5. What roles must be staffed or otherwise provided for outside the traditional finance and accounting jobs?

 

Like what you're reading? Subscribe Now! Each organization's staffing setup will be different. The same enterprise may change its staffing arrangements over time based upon the needs at the time - including the specific people they hire and their skill set and capacity gaps. They don't have to be stuck with one staffing model for all time.

 

As a 3 January 2015 article from The Economist noted, increasingly on-demand work arrangements leave many more options for both workers and companies than previously existed. As the article notes, this is a double-edged sword for both workers and companies. Nevertheless, when determining how to staff financial roles, this increase in on-demand work provides opportunities for enterprises to find innovative ways to deliver excellence.

Get the   Five Types of Governance   resource today!

 

Design Group International's Financial Services Roles tool can help steward leaders determine which roles need to be staffed internally and which roles may need to be serviced by outside contractors. While any of the roles could be staffed internally or contracted, the types any given enterprise chooses to staff or contract will be based on that enterprise's current needs and strategy. The tool is free and available here. 

Financial Roles Get the map!

.
Read More ›

Topics: steward leaders, Matthew Thomas, steward leader, contracting, steward leadership, Financial roles