E101: organisational Impact

This is the world of work podcast with James and James, hi. This is

James. Just before we start, I wanted to remind you that you can read our articles, explore more podcasts, and learn about our online personal and management development programs and workshops by visiting our website, www, dot, World of work.io. All right, onto the podcast. Hello. This is James, and this is Jane,

and here we are again with another episode of a world of work podcast. What are we speaking about today? Jane,

well, today we are talking all about responsible business, and we're talking to the brilliant Anna Fauci, who leads the organization scvo, which is the Scottish council for voluntary organizations. Sounds good. Let's get into the conversation.

Okay, so here we are in the main body of today's conversation, and we're speaking to Anna Fauci from scvo, the Scottish council for voluntary organizations. And today, what we're really speaking about is how organizations behave and some of the impacts that organizations have on their stakeholders and on the wider world. Before we get into that in a bit more detail, though, Anna, would you be able to introduce yourself and say a bit more about yourself and your background to the audience? Yeah,

hi, James. I am Anna Fauci, as she said, I'm the Chief Executive Scottish council for voluntary organizations. So we're an umbrella body for the voluntary sector in Scotland. So our members could be charities or community groups or social enterprises, and we also represent the wider sector in lobbying government and trying to influence we also provide services to the sector. So we run the good moves job site, we produce the third force news magazine. Do payroll for 400 organizations. I have got a, yeah, a huge range of things. Basically, we're all about the contribution, supporting the contribution of the voluntary sector to Scotland. I

think that gives you such a fantastic insight at the real sectoral level, at a country scale as well. I mean, it's really, really great to have you here to speak about that. I guess I've got one sort of side question, and then one main question, first question that I'd like to know a little bit about is the fact that when we speak about sort of organizational behaviors and doing good things as an organization and behaving in the right ways. Quite often we think about the word responsibility. So people talk about things like responsible behaviors, responsible business, all of that kind of stuff. I'd like to understand a little bit more from you What responsibility means to you. And then as a side question, at some point, I'd like to understand a little bit more about how big the Scottish voluntary sector is because, my understanding, it's quite big, so that's sort of two balls in the air at once.

Okay, well, we start with the second ball, because that's quicker. Yeah, let's do that. That sounds great. The voltage sector in Scotland is some 40,000 organizations in scale. We think 23,000 of those are charities. So that could be anything from big national charities to very small village halls and community groups. And so it's a huge it recovers anything from the environment to cancer research or children's services, tourism, you name it. The sector does it? It's phenomenal. Yeah. Okay, cool. Thank you for that,

yeah. So what that makes it really interesting and also really interesting in terms of the topic we're discussing today? Because responsibility could cover anything for anybody, in some ways, I suppose for me, it really means looking beyond the immediate, beyond the bottom line or your own organizations viability. I think we're only passing through, and we need to make sure that our society and our planet are really good places to be for future generations, or at least that we haven't wrecked it for future generations. And but I think also, if you're in a leadership position, you really should, should live, live all of that, and that you should build that feeling of responsibility into your own day to day activities. And that might include someone like me who has got a platform and has got a voice, handing over that platform at times to other people who don't have a voice to let them have their say and be able to do a bit of influencing,

yeah, yeah. That's, that's, it's great to get the range of organizations that are involved and to draw up a point that responsibility can be different things to different people, but it's about more than us when we think about, you know, frameworks for responsibilities and ways that we can kind of draw out maps of who we are being responsible to, or what domains we should be responsible within. Are there any sort of guiding organizations or frameworks that you're aware of or that you think of, or that your members look to at any point in time? I

think, personally and at scbo, we're very much a. Be engaged with the national performance framework that we have in Scotland. So I see that as embodying how we want to be as a country. And there's not much in there that isn't relevant to the sector or to us as an organization. And I think it provides a really good way to set out why you're doing things and to think about that bigger picture when you can sometimes get bogged down in the kind of day to day level stuff. And obviously the National Performance Framework is Scotland's kind of answer to the SDGs sustainable development goals that the UN have, but it doesn't cover all aspects of the SDGs. But that, again, is something the Sustainable Development Goals are something that are really influencing a lot of organizations across the globe, just now, at different levels, and I think that's really important. We at scbo have established a sustainable development goals network for Scotland, not just for the sector, and one of my colleagues has been leading on that, and that's certainly proved to be very engaging for a lot of people with a lot of different different interests. But I think today as well, it would be good to remember today's the day of national day of kindness, or, well, yeah, and actually, then Carnegie Foundation have done lots and lots of work on kindness, and I think that's really relevant to this agenda. And I'm a big fan of that work, because I think it's a principle that that should really cover, that should bind us all in leadership positions, is to remember that to have kindness at the heart of everything that you do.

That's a great that's a great call out, um, we, we actually did a podcast on Scotland international performance framework and spoke to the Scottish Government about it. So if people want to learn more of it, can have a listen to that. The types of things that are covered in there that are similar to the sustainable development goals are, are things to do with things like the eradication of poverty, environmental positive impacts, education, gender equality, you know, life on land, life and water, justice, all those types of things. And I think one of the things that those have in common is that sense of kindness. And so I, when you were speaking about it, actually kind of connected those in my mind, because obviously Scotland uses the word kindness quite bravely in some of its ambitions as a country. And I think kindness does quite embody some of this. So I think that's, that's pretty, pretty helpful, James,

for the only country in the world, as far as I know, to have love in a national outcome. It's

incredible, isn't it? It's, it's brave. It's, it is a brave thing to do, which is good. Um, so I mean, obviously you're looking at this from the sort of charitable, charitable sector, broadly speaking, when you think about organizations behaving in this way, and looking at their impact and things like that, what types of organizations or bodies do you think should be trying to behave like this? Do you think it's, it's the domain of just our more charitable organizations? Do you think it's for our public sector bodies? Do you think, or you know, corporate organizations should be doing it? Where do you think that we should be trying to behave like this?

I think everybody should be trying to behave like this. And I certainly think anyone who wants to employ anyone under 35 has to behave like this, because those generations are the ones that are looking for very different things, from their employers to what people of my generation were looking for. And I don't think anyone's got a monopoly on being responsible, or indeed on being irresponsible. I think across the public sector, private sector, voluntary sector, you will see good and bad examples in this kind of area. That's

interesting. I think, yeah, I think that's interesting, but we can see positivity in all those areas. At some point, it'd be good to explore some of the challenges you see within maybe more of a third sector where behaviors aren't necessarily as good. I think that's that's a really interesting insight, because we insight, because we quite often assume that if some organization is set up for a charitable purpose, that it will be behaving responsibility responsibly. But I'm sure that's not strictly the case. Um, in terms of your personal views on why these things are important, we know these outcomes, they feel good, they feel kind. But is there more to it than that. You know, why do we need to behave in some of these ways and focus on some of these broader impacts that we focus on when we're being responsible?

I think primarily it's because it's just right. So social justice, equality, fairness, the future of the planet. I think all those things are really important. But there's also that we all need to stay relevant and to move with the times. And this is the kind of the growing kind of zeitgeist of the times is to behave like this and to be like that. We also need to be realistic. We need to attract and retain good staff. So fundamentally good work and being a good employer, and the Fair Work principles in Scotland, but that whole concept of the good. Quality work is something that's fundamental, I think, to that being a responsible organization, and that's actually good for your bottom line, as well as just being a good thing to do. But we also need to all contribute to all our different communities well being written that could be a local level, it could be a national level, or it could be a global level. And sustainability isn't just about the environment, even though that's really important, it's also about your own organization sustainability, or your sector sustainability. So you can actually get some good, harder measures in some ways, in terms of the bottom line argument that if you don't have, if you improve your productivity, and you don't have that cost of churn, then actually there's a good business case, as well as the moral and ethical case for for this.

That's that's a great argument that you've just made, and a very persuasive one about the importance of these things. I'm interested to know that when you see it in practice, and you see organizations trying to aspire to these kind of objectives, what are the what the reality is, how hard is it for organizations to start to work towards this, particularly if they're coming from a place where they haven't previously tried to be responsible? I guess? Yeah,

I think it's really hard, and I think you have to do it consciously. We do have in Scotland really good rhetoric, good policy, good legislation, even, and I think there's a kind of consensus around it being the right thing to do, but definitely we're not there. In reality, it's really, really hard to change the systems and the attitudes power structures that have been in place forever, and we also have to take the public with us. I think that's that's really important. But I think the voluntary sector in itself is in a really good position as a starting point, because it's never been about in individuals making a profit and the concept of values and principles have always been quite upfront, not just something that people are kind of adding on as a nice to have, and also really good at challenging and speaking out on big issues, whether that's at a local level or whether it's at a global level. So there's some fundamentals there that the sector is already my sector is already good at, but, yeah, the reality is that we've been living with these ways of working for decades, if not centuries, and we do need to make it feel more natural and less like something that we're just learning How to do.

Yeah, and I think you've touched on something that I feel quite strongly about, having worked in the sector for a fair amount of time. So I'd be interested in your thoughts about how, what the big frictions are, you think for organizations. So one of the for example, one of the ones that I often see is, is the friction between trying to make sure as much of the income goes towards beneficiaries as possible, whilst also paying a fair living wage, for example, and trying to balance those responsibilities. Do you see frictions like that that are sort of applying to many organizations in the sector? Or does everyone have different individual challenges within trying to make the balance between the different areas of responsibility?

I think everyone does have different challenges, but there's some fundamentals that would be across a large, the vast majority of the sector, and that you've given a really good example there Jade, in terms of the living wage, in that there won't be many organizations that say they don't want to pay it, if any. But the way, well, for example, if you're involved in a public procurement exercise, those kind of contracts, which would be, you know, most of social care, if not all of social care, and a lot of employability services and things like that, then those contracts are not set up to drive that kind of context. There's they're still very transactional and very old fashioned. But there would be other things, like, for example, organizations that rely on fundraising or on year on year funding from from local government or public donations. It's really hard to make long term commitments if your income is so fragile, and that's something we see. But 75% of the voluntary sector in Scotland are have a turnover of less than 50,000 pounds. The majority don't even employ staff, never mind pay them a living wage. So you're talking about some very fragile organizations, but one of the things that the Coronavirus situation has really taught us is that actually that fragility of income applies to whether you're a massive, national charity or even global charity, or whether you're a wee, tiny, grassroots organization. And the fragility is there.

Yeah, and I think, I think that's a really interesting thought about that job security, as well as living wages, but also that job security. And it's that's a classic friction that you see within the Scottish framework, where they're both wanting people to have job security, but we're also trying to make sure the third sector can be competitive with other organizations when they go through a tendering process, which I think is really, really hard, competitive each other, which doesn't help,

no. And I think I we could very easily go on to a wider societal question mark about whether competitive processes are the most get the best results. But I, I think I'd be really interested in your thoughts. Do you think there is I'm going to ask something maybe a little bit a little bit controversial. Do you think the sector does enough to educate the public about why they might make the choices they do to be responsible as businesses beyond their own core beneficiaries.

That's a really good question. I think yes and no. So some some parts of the sector probably do focus more on that, but, but we could certainly do more. I think a lot of voluntary organizations are very much focused on what what they do and the what they are they deliver for the people that support them, or the people that benefit from from what they do, rather than the creating a wider public message about your overall principles. But that's something that we're looking at. You've probably seen our never more needed campaign, so we're looking at that and developing it a bit more for the next few months, around really emphasizing the contribution that the sector makes, and looking at helping the sector to have debates amongst itself, as it were, if that's that's not even a phrase, to see how we can live those values and really be more challenging and have those quite challenging debates amongst ourselves, rather than having them forced on us by funders or by the state. That's

a I like that a lot. Yes, I had briefly seen it, and I think I think that sounds like a really solid way of a sector starting to work together, because I think that's always a challenge, trying to get sectors where when, especially when they're experiencing economic conditions the way that they are in the moment. I mean, that's that's hard, right? Yes, I guess that leads me on to a slightly different question, which is, so there are lots of organizations who, if they had time and energy, would do it better, and are trying to do you see organizations being a little bit performative in the way they treat responsibility. So I'm thinking here about where you see something like greenwashing, where organizations show themselves to be very environmental, even if they're not necessarily quite as environmental as they say so in order to appeal to the customer or to the to the wider general public. Is there such a thing as organizations being more performatively responsible than they are in real life? Yeah, of course.

And I think they my favorite one of the moment is youth washing, so everybody's looking like they're doing loads to help young people into the jobs market and all that kind of thing. And some people are, but yeah, there is a bit of, there's always, you know, every every year, every month, at the moment, brings a different thing that you you want to look like you're doing really good at and so, but I think in some ways, does that really matter? Because at least it's a start. So people, if people are being performative about it, organizations are being performative about it, at least it means it's on their radar, and they know they should be doing something. So what, I think, what matters is the how you then make them, how we as society can pressurize those organizations making those claims into actually delivering on their promises. So I mean, for me at scbo, I really want us to be held to account. I want myself to be held to account by my colleagues. I want us to be held to account by our members, our funders, whatever. I think that's really healthy. And I think it's it's not in our nature, sometimes in Scotland, to really to be constructively challenging. We either just go, Oh well, that's the way it is, or it's always been like that, or we have a wee moon. But actually, if we were more constructively challenging, we could really start to hold organizations and systems to account and really change, I think use our power as citizens to make those changes. Sounds

like there's a little bit of faking it until you make it I guess you know if somebody's pretending, then let's jump on board and encourage and support and help them see some benefits from that. It feels like that's probably a good way to go. That was the exact phrase I was thinking of. You find what presses somebody's buttons and use it to get to where you want it to be.

Yeah, and I guess within that, you know, if we, if we celebrate people claiming to be these things and then to be more responsible than if we feedback positively to them, that'll only, you know, help them feel good about it and help them feel that it's not just for morally right thing to do, but potentially it's for, you know, business case type of right thing to do as well. So I guess we've got some influence as individuals, as well as the other roles that we have. I've got another question, which is maybe sort of a bit more structural or systemic, or something like that, the way that there's something that's been on my mind for a while, is that the way that we set up and establish our organizations and our communities and the ways that we work together legally, but a lot of the frameworks that we use have been around for a long time, and they, you know, they haven't changed hugely. There are some changes, but there haven't been huge changes for for quite a while. Do you think it's possible for organizations to be really responsible and kind and all these types of things that that we think are in the better interest of the wider world using these frameworks that we have in place. Or do you think there's space for new ones? And if so, what types of things or changes might you see in our sort of structuring of organizations?

This is something that you some of my colleagues, will laugh at you asking me that, because I'm a bit obsessed with this. I think, right, we run everything like it was run in the immediately post war? Yeah, and it just doesn't work. Of course, it doesn't. Those are the things that have created or driven poverty and equality, ill health. That's what's killing the planet. It's even started wars. You know, we need to wait on this. It's quite middle class, it's a it's managerial. It's focused on profit or GDP or, you know, it just doesn't maximize the talents that we have. It doesn't maximize the skills that we have, and it certainly doesn't challenge traditional ways of thinking. And I really believe, if you are, if you're directive as a manager or a leader, and you're controlling your risk averse, which is what all the systems are, don't really trust and empower your colleagues then, and you don't bring in as many voices into the room, then you just won't get the best outcomes, and even products or productivity won't be the best. So I really think if you focus on the money, which we've done, or staff, infrastructure and money, and don't focus on people. It's actually counter intuitively. It's not good for business. And I'm obsessed with this in a governance sense. I think our governance systems are not attractive to younger people. They're all about sort of controlling, managing, trying to mitigate risk, instead of trying to take informed risk and to do things which are going to be innovative and different, where we've set up systems to would mean we never cross the road. You know, we're worrying about the one in a million, instead of focusing on making empowering the rest. So yeah, I really think we have to change. But I do think things are changing. So especially, look at lots of social enterprises, if you look at there's much more employee owned businesses now, yeah, the kind of co ops and things like that are having a bit of a resurgence. But also think young people are doing things differently. Young people don't want to be boxed into traditional ways of doing I say young me being an old lady,

we see younger people who are really doing things differently, and they're asking their either they set up their own organization, or they're asking their employers to do things differently and saying, we'll just not come and work for you if you don't recognize this. And they don't have that same concept of a superannuated job for life that some of us were brought up on. They actually, they all take their their skills and their talent to where to where it's appreciated. And I think that's a great thing, and that should really make us all think on and modernize. I

was I read something a couple months ago, or maybe a bit longer, that stuck in my head, and it was somebody proposing a slight change to a governance structure for an organization, and saying that actually within this organization, what we should do is we should give X amount of voting rights to a representative of the actual local environment. So saying we should have a voter for our local animals and a voter for our local green spaces, and they should have a say in our organization running. And that just struck me as such a unusual idea. I mean, do you think things like that are too far out there to be worth discussing? Do you think it's worth trying to challenge our conceptions of things like that as well? What do you think about things like

that? I think that sounds amazing. Yeah, no, I don't think anything's too far out there to be worth considering. I really, I think you should, you should be willing to try things and accept that it might work. It might not. Work and because you've tried it, and that is something that for the voluntary sector, and indeed for the public sector, is really difficult. You get, you know, you'll be on the front page of The Daily Record. If you're a local authority and you do something that wastes Council taxpayers money, you'll be, you know, pilloried by whoever's funded you if you're a voluntary sector organization that makes a mistake. But you know, if you look at the private sector, then they wouldn't have any products if they didn't make mistakes. Oh, it's all learning. So to do that, and I

was gonna say sometimes doing the same thing in a really safe way is a mistake, and it just closes down all the future opportunities. But you could have to create even better things. And if we all wanted to live in a cave, we could have done that whatever, 100,000 years ago, and it would all just be as it was, and it would be fine. So I guess part of your role is engaging, sometimes with government and some sort of regulatory views of the sector as well. What sort of sense do you get from those voices within Scotland, or any insights you have from other countries about their thoughts on responsibility in the voluntary sector, or more broadly, do you have any any thoughts on that, or insights

into this? Well, I think, I think in Scotland, we've got quite a benign political environment just now, and I don't think the current administration at Holyrood. I mean, it's a kind of a cross party feeling in terms of, you know, everyone signed up to national performance framework as an example. But I do think there is a feeling of that Scotland wants to be a country of that's socially just. I think that means different things to different people and to different political perspectives. But I think there's an underlying feeling that that is a good thing. How you deliver it is quite probably, quite different. I think it's really encouraging that we're part of the the we go group as it were, the well being and economy, governments. I think that's that's great, and Wales, obviously is part of that, and New Zealand, and I'm really, I'm a massive fan of a Jacinda adern and New Zealand as a human being, but as a leader as well, and as a women leader, I'm also a massive fan of what they're doing in Wales around future generations. So the Welsh Future Generations Act and their future generations Commissioner, Sophie, how are just doing really good things? I think that's a great example of what responsible means for a government to put in place. I'm a person and a body with that responsibility who, you know, to look out for the rights of future generations as yet unborn that is showing great leadership. I would like a future generations commissioner in Scotland, but I've met Sophie a couple of times in Wales, and she I just think the work that she does could actually be really transformative. And is being in Wales, and I think we can learn a lot from that.

Yeah, I mean that whole focus on, I guess, the collective benefit to humanity now and into the future, that sort of discounting of a sort of utilitarian benefits we receive as people in the future as well as in the present, is such a powerful thing, and it's great to see that being brought to life. Do you think there's more of that, I guess our governments or our regulators could do to make it easier for people to be or organizations to be responsible, and more impact focused? I think there's something about the

scrutiny landscape. So if you're scrutinized on outputs, and, you know, things and time, and not on the outcome or the impact that you you have, then that's, you know, that's not great. So, I suppose, if you think about, if we talked about procurement men before, but if you're measured on whether it's in a regulatory context, like an inspection, or whether it's a contractual context. If you're measured on how many visits you've done, how many train sessions you've held, or stuff like that, that doesn't mean she'll tell you anything about the difference you've made to people's lives. Yeah, it's that input measure, isn't it? Absolutely. It's just pointless and it's easy. That's why people do it, because it's easy, it's nice, right? We can pretend we're doing something good. Jane, I think you had a question,

yeah. And I think I think that's a really interesting point, because I think quite often, as much as we try in a sector not to become focused on the money, we need the money to run the organizations for a lot of cases, or to do the work, or to to impact, and it becomes people work backwards, right? They go, Okay, so that's what's being funded. So I'm going to work out what the inputs would look like to make that happen. And you like you say, you get, you end up with a pretty challenging environment. Let's, let's turn our attention to those doing it well for a moment, because there are, we know, there are some great examples where. Whether it's in the corporate sector, or whether it's in the third sector or the public sector, where have you got any personal favorites, where you look and you see organization, you think, yeah, that is, that is the direction people should be moving in.

Well, I think I've probably already given them, and that would be the future generations commissioner in Wales and and in New Zealand as a country, I find it really hard to choose particular individual organizations, because I think you have to really know that you're seeing beyond the surface. So you can see stuff that looks really good and forever reading things on Twitter or on in the Harvard Business Review that you think, Oh, that's really interesting, only to copy that, and then you think, well, actually, what's the reality behind, behind that? And well, and that doesn't work for your own organization. So, so I'm not going to be choosing particular examples other than Jacinda and Sophie, very,

very wise decision. And, yes, other business review could be a whole other conversation. So in which case, if people are sitting listening right now, and maybe they're not leaders, but they're managers in organizations, and they're thinking, oh, you know, I wonder how good we are really at this, and I'd really like to see us do more. Where would you suggest they start looking about changing either their own behavior or their organizer, influencing their organisation's

behavior? So I think in terms of just organisationally, if you're a manager or anyone really working in an organization, I'll come back to what individuals can do, but for in a work context, I think it's all about your values, isn't it? You have to live your values, not just have them on a mouse mat. And I think you need to be really authentic, especially if you're in a position like mine. But any manager needs to be just cliche to say. You need to be yourself, your bring your whole self to work, but I think you really do, because people need to know that you're also vulnerable, that you are a human being, that you know that there's something about that genuine presence and genuine that is a kindness thing as well, but it's also about being prepared to expose Your own vulnerability and to be able to be challenged, and also to be challenging. So I kind of think that you have to level those things that we talk about in terms of organizations. You have to do as an individual. And it could be just making sure you turn off all the lights, if we're thinking about sustainability, you know, I mean that is, it sounds daft, actually, that's quite important, but it is a I think it's about how you live your life and how you are. But I think also for individual people, I was really thinking about this, and when I was sort of just before it would be, we came on to this discussion. And I think there's for individuals, it's all about what what you do with your vote and what you do with your money. So political parties when elections and therefore they write their manifestos and their speeches on the basis of public pressure, so what they think is going to appeal to the voter, and if the public is demanding what it's always had, if the public wants more roads, cheap food, throw away fashion, if they're fed disinformation, as we are being just now about immigration and 5g for example, then that's what people vote on. So you need to change how people think and help to kind of move on that public discourse, so that we can then use that public pressure to influence politicians. And that really applies to how we spend our money as well. And if you think about the organizations, the businesses are probably profited most over the last few months below being local businesses that we've already discovered. But there's also Amazon, and we really need to think about what we buy, who produces it, and what impact that's having on the planet. And that might be shopping with your local businesses. It might be choosing social enterprises, and it might be making sure that you've researched a supply chain as far as you can to see what's behind those publicity statements. So I really think people need to as individual citizens take responsibility for how they engage in the political system and how they use their money to spend to drive good

I am while you were just as you were saying that before you got to the bit about supply chain, I'd written down supply chain education, that's got to be the answer. Well, you

know what? I'm going to jump in. I don't know if you guys saw this, but you know that you've got sort of direct, direct count on voting in Switzerland. I don't know if you saw it, but Geneva count on voted recently to do their minimum wage. But they're also proposing that legal organizations are accountable for everything throughout their entire supply chain. Yeah. Um, which I think they'll vote on pretty soon, but that would be hugely transformational. I believe it absolutely would.

I mean, it almost makes me nervous just thinking about the impacts of something that big. I mean, how you would administer that? But, yeah,

I'm not, I'm definitely not sure how you administer it, but I definitely think there is an interest that over the last 1520, years, the good enough attitude to product development of just getting things to market and then trying to get a large share of the market quickly as they develop the product. We've had that for quite a long time now. So maybe we do need to stop and take stock and force organizations to think a little bit more and a little bit more intentionally about the way they bring products and services to market and be held to account on that. I think that'd be really cool. The other thing, the other thing, like you said, which I'm just in love with, is more than a mouse mat, which may be my new slogan. I smiled at that

too. James and I are best with the idea of values being on a wall, stroke on a map. We never use phrase on a mouse mat, which is far better, and how? And I guess this leads me to a question about how leaders very specifically so CEOs, those few people that shape the organization. CEOs chairs, very senior leaders within the organization. What can they, or should they be doing to create an environment where people can speak up and speak out and critique and have open and live their values, even if those values may, in some senses, not contradict their organizational values, but you know, may not exactly be aligned. How can what can leaders do to create that environment. Do you

think? Well, Joe, that's really interesting, Jane, because apart from the sort of hygiene factors like money, misalignment of values between the person and the organization is one of the main reasons people leave. So I actually don't think you should be working in an organization that's not aligned to your own values, but that's a personal point of view, I suppose. I think you have to be really open and transparent and really aware of the importance of your staff. I think you need to explain the decisions that you're making and get as many voices as possible involved in those decisions. And that doesn't mean to say that you do everything that all your colleagues want, but that you then explain why some things weren't an option, of why you took a different decision, so that people really understand it. And that would be at a board level and a chief exec level, I think that whole kind of building up trust, where people understand why decisions have been made, even if they're not palatable decisions. And I think that's really important. And really thinking about that term the good work thing, I suppose, making sure that people feel that they're a especially nowadays, when a lot of us are working from home, that we may really focus on work life balance and making sure that people are able to to do things, to let them be themselves, rather than just be chained to a computer all day. I think it's empowering people, trusting people, and making them feel valued, but also letting them, not letting the wrong words, but encouraging people to to challenge back and to bring you their ideas, and that there's no wild idea that's too wild. And, you know, you might not do it, but let's have a conversation about it, and that you are open to hearing things and acting on them. I don't know. I'm kind of wearing a bit there. No, I

think, I think you're really right. I think one of the challenges I've seen quite a lot in organizations is well meaning and good organizations trying to move towards a space where I all ideas and innovation are good, and I've seen that done quite well, but that still maybe are not quite as good. Let's use that phrase at being forcing the forcing themselves to be comfortable with critique internally. And so quite often I meet senior leaders who are better at no idea it's a bad idea. They're getting better towards that, but they're maybe not quite and they don't mean to they're not deliberately shutting things down, but they haven't created an environment where people feel confident to say, I actually think that as an organization, we're probably, I don't know, letting down the side on environment, or we could do better in this. And I'm not sure this is the right decision for us. And I don't, I don't know if you have any thoughts on tips where you've seen leaders, or you yourself, how you do that within your organization, to make sure that your team feel they can always critique internally at an appropriate way. We're

trying to do that just now at scvo, and I think it depends on the culture of your organization. We wouldn't have been able to do that when I first arrived, because it was quite a combative culture, I suppose. But one of the things I learned when I was first a chief executive, so a long time ago, and not in this job, was that I kept having ideas and. And people my ideas often when I was on a train there for an email, and then I discovered that they were, they were away doing them. And what I actually needed somebody to say to me was, don't be fantastic. Yeah, it never occurred to me until I was in that position that people would do stuff, Oh,

Anna, I have, oh, I've been there on that one. That's it. You throw away idea that you just wanted to sound off someone, and then they go, Oh, the boss has said it. I'm gonna go off and do it and make it happen. And if

you're in like a layered organization, the person that you'll have mentioned it to will mention it to somebody else. And before you know it, you're creating, like a whole random thing, but you never knew, and

suddenly there's a 15 page presentation about how you can make it happen by Christmas. Yeah,

you're just gonna, oh my goodness. So we're just over to tell me to shut up. Yeah, so, but I think it takes a while for people to believe that you won't then kind of sack or something, yeah, if they tell you to shut up.

Yeah. So I think we're getting towards the end of time. But I've got one question that I'd like to wrap up before we sorry to ask before we start to move towards wrapping up when we as individuals in leadership positions, create environments that invite others to challenge us, it means that we can put ourselves in a situation where we are regularly being challenged and and that can lead to better outcomes in Many ways, but it can sometimes feel emotionally tiring to be in that sort of variable or defensive or adjusting position where you're accepting all these messages, looking for you to change. That can be emotionally tiring in my experience and understanding. Have you got any thoughts on how leaders looking to move into this, this more challenge friendly way of working, can manage themselves and look positively on this and to find it energizing as opposed to draining, or any sort of reflections on that sort of personal, emotional position that they might find themselves

in. Yeah, that's a, that's a cracking question. James, it's a, I think yes. So the it's really difficult sometimes not to take things personally or to to feel it or to become defensive, but it does make me think about when, when my daughters were young, and I was really pleased that they were learning to be assertive. But sometimes I wanted to go, could you just not be assertive with me? Give me a break? But, but actually it's that I really enjoy that, and I enjoy it from my staff as well. I mean, I don't enjoy it if it's a, you know, a shouting and swearing thing, which So, but that child, I think there's that curiosity and just being fascinated by what people come up with and the reasons with them. I just love all that. So it might be draining, but I think the thing is to to embrace it and see it as learning, and to think, Oh, my goodness, I wonder why they think that. Rather think, Oh, why do they think that? You know, there's just a different mindset around it and they and I think, I suppose I have got quite a generally, a welcoming kind of and curious mindset. So I just love it. I love when I see people coming up with stuff that they're just sat in a corner being quietly, and then suddenly they'll see something like, Whoa,

yeah. I like that sort of generative framework, your generative mindset, you're thinking about there, about what could the future be and and I think reflecting on it a little bit as you speak, for me, there's probably something about holding one's own ideas a bit lightly and attaching yourself and your identity to that future potential for whatever comes, and not being so wedded to the past. There's something in that managing yourself fluidly that I think is potentially good to aspire to. So we've been chatting for quite a while. Unfortunately, I think we are getting to the end. From a time perspective, I've really enjoyed I've really enjoyed that. I think there's some great conversation. We could do more, but in the interest of time, I'm going to wind us up before we finish properly. Though, is there anything that people could do to learn more about you or your organization, or more broadly, this field? Is there anything you'd like to share or recommend people look

at on terms of SC view. Obviously, we've got our scvo website, predictably enough, and various Twitter feeds, including scvo tweets and my own I have my own personal Twitter account, which is just at Anna Fowley, because thankfully, I'm the only person in the world, but not that I've been able to use it very much recently, because I've been so deadened by screen screen time the so I would also probably say that I hadn't thought of this beforehand, but the SDG network that I talked about earlier a good thing to have a look at. And you can find out more about that again, on on our website too, probably just by google it too. So, yeah, I suppose that's all I could think of for just now. Yeah, that's

great. That's some great advice. Um, the SDG network is, I think, full of useful information, isn't it? About how people can look at the impact of their organization has, and probably get insights from other organizations as well. So that feels like a. A very practical thing. I forgot that, yeah, years ago, I came along and did a little bit. So that was that was really fun. That's how one of those starting things for my thinking about all of this was was going to one of us, all right? Well, it's time to say goodbye, I think so. It's a thank you very much for me, and thank you for me too. Thank you for having me.

Okay, so that was conversation with Anna, and you are back in the room with us. Jane, did you have any particular takeaways or learning points from that conversation you'd like to share or reflect on?

Well, firstly, I love that conversation because it's my favorite things. It's my favorite sector. It's someone who I think is brilliant, and I think it's a really important conversation we need to have. And on that note, I guess the thing that I would if I had to pick one thing, and it's tough, I would say the importance of sectors, any sector, actually taking its role as or taking a role in public education, to best understand the context for their decisions, I think is really important so that public education piece about the need for responsible business, fair wages, etc, within the charity sector. But I think that that translates to other sectors too, and how organizations can work together to best educate the public to understand why they might make the decisions they do. That may feel at first glance, if you're not, if you're not, if you're not thinking about it too deeply to be surprising. Yeah,

I think that education and collaboration piece is powerful. My takeaway is slightly different, and my takeaway is, I guess, starting with yourself in all of us. So a few of the things Anna said, particularly when she was speaking about the role of leaders, reflected back on actions that we can take as individuals, so as leaders, we can be true to our values and live our values and behave in accordance with things that we think are important and imbue that in the way that we operate our businesses. But also as individuals, we can do things like make ethical consumption choices, engage in the right way with our communities and political frameworks, and generally look to use our behaviors to make ourselves proud and have impact. So, you know, it might seem like there are some big challenges out there, but perhaps the best thing we can do is to live our own lives well and through that, you know, role model good behavior and change the world one grain of sand at a time, that kind of thing.

Yeah, and regular listeners will definitely recognize some of what we're talking about here as also fitting with the authentic leadership model, so particularly things like balance processing, which and relational transparency, so being transparent about where what underpins the choices you make and the way in which that you relate to other people. And I think I think that's really the more I look back, the more I think that that model of authentic leadership can help people understand, as leaders, how to start with their self, which is the point you made, which I think is really important. Great. Yeah. Well, that was fun. Okay, so I think it's until next time goodbye from me, and it's goodbye from me. Hi.