Working with senior managers

Photos: Kaboompics and (insert) Energepiccom on Pexels

This area of the site was written for very experienced trust fundraisers.

How senior managers work

The following section will be about working with the senior management that you encounter in your role. By “senior manager” I mean senior management team (of Heads of/Directors) in a medium/large charity, maybe also the regional managers in a very large national charity and the CEO/possibly trustees in a small charity.

You meet the manager about a project. They appear interested and engaged, it looks like action will follow. You launch into your spiel and they glaze over. Nothing happens… and keeps happening, in different ways. You’ve just seen a conflict in their lives in action. They know that leadership of strategic planning is their role and your work has a part to play in that. However, their harassed, fragmented, overly busy work prevents them bringing their (normally) many talents to bear. This time, you haven’t found a way to make it easy for them to move things forwards.

On the whole, senior managers’ work life is nothing like your own (look at the work of business studies academic Henry Mintzberg for the proof):

• They take decisions quickly, based especially on oral information, the tangible rather than the abstract and following basic principles (rather than following the intricacies of subtly constructed arguments). ‘Becoming superficial is an occupation hazard.’
• They almost never have more than an hour on something
• They are constantly being interrupted (in a quote of one manager in Mintzberg’s book, Simply Managing, management involves “one damn thing after another”)
• They spend a lot of time on high pressure disturbances
• They like making quick decisions to move things on. If you focused too much on any one thing you’d never keep your head above water
• They shun reports, skim detailed documents and need summaries. You probably mainly read, but they mainly talk
• They pick up a lot of their information verbally
• They are acutely aware of the opportunity cost of concentrating on one thing after another. They’re ‘plagued by what they might do, as against what they must do’
• They do not write down much of what they hear. They remember the key points
• The time they spend with other departments and on strategy-level stuff means they may not know their own teams as thoroughly as you might expect
• They prefer concrete action to abstract discussion
• Their common operating approach is to take decisions in small increments (which might explain why, as a fundraiser, you only get one or two goes at speaking to them and then sometimes don’t get that much when you do)

What this means in practice is that short in-person meetings that pick out the key points and cut to the chase are very valuable, especially before any formal sit down decisions. If you can get access to them, it fits well with how they work.

You only need to see one restructure in action to realise that even though senior managers are normally brilliant and very hardworking, they have their limitations. Not only do they not know the work of their own teams that well, they also don’t appreciate the wider consequences of their actions. The fact they’re messing up your funding isn’t necessarily because they don’t care – it’s just one of the unintended consequences of an action. You need to help them find the best solution for all concerned. 

Being with them can be the only way to know what they actually think on an issue. Senior managers can have hidden agendas that make them behave unpredictably. However much confidential information you’re exposed to as a fundraiser, they see quite a lot more. For example, I went into one charity to look at how to add lottery-funded work onto different services and I identified a range of good candidates in different services. I then spoke to the senior management and they immediately ruled out several services on the grounds that (unknown to me) were actually under some threat, internally.

I usually set out to gradually educate my senior managers on the key points they need to know – dropping in key ideas, in context, when the chance comes up. The good thing is they’re often in post for a long time, so you can gradually build an understanding.

Other characteristics of senior managers

Something Mintzberg doesn’t cover is that senior managers CAN (not necessarily do, just can) have an ego and/or a status-consciousness. It doesn’t necessarily come out, because they have great people skills and it’s not really the done thing in our sector. However, it’s better to treat it as a possible hazard – for example, showing a little deference and be careful not to show them up.

Psychologist Dacher Keltner found that exercising power encourages people to empathise less and see the world more in terms of their own point of view. Luckily for us, they’ve often shared that point of view with their team, so we can find out what it is. What this means, for us, is that what we normally do: try to appeal to people’s own interests. It’s all the more important with senior management. [I should say in passing, though, that I’ve known some genuinely humble, empathetic and truly listening senior managers. So, it’s a tendency, not a rule.]

Robert Cialdini, professor of influence, made the observation that some senior managers see themselves as bullet proof. I vaguely recall once or twice early in my career trying to influence a senior manager by creating a situation where if they didn’t change their approach they might be shown up. I recall not getting the expected result.

Five styles of executives – five approaches to persuasion

In Change the Way You Persuade, a 202 Harvard Business Review article, Williams and Miller identified five different default styles of decision making amongst senior manager, touched on how to identify them and suggested that you persuade each very differently from the others:

1. Charismatics (25% of executives)

Risk-seeking yet responsible, they are more passionate and easily intrigued and enthralled by new ideas. They are often described as enthusiastic, captivating, talkative, dominant and persistent. They are impressed by intelligence and facts and not normally given to either self-absorption or compulsiveness. They emphasize results.

Charismatics are aware that their enthusiasms need to be grounded in the real world and may have had experience of impulsive decisions not working out well. As such, they will seek out facts to support their emotions and may quickly lose enthusiasm if there aren’t forthcoming.

As Charismatics are about results, to fire them up you need to open with the results. However, as they are wary of the idea lacking real world grounding, don’t get carried away with them and instead talk about the risks and mitigating them.

All senior staff are busy, but executives particularly have short attention spans. So, you need short, clear arguments, with visuals if possible and to bring things back to results.

Buzz words to use: results, proven, actions, show, watch (they tend to be visual thinkers) easy, clear, focus.

However, they will particularly expect the detail to be there before they green light something. So, they may take longer to persuade and you need to provide them with all the detail so they know it’s there. Trust fundraisers are in a deadlines business. So, I’d say the conclusion of Williams and Miller’s work is that you need to start a piece of work earlier if you know you need to persuade a Charismatic to get sign-off.

2. Thinkers (11% of executives)

Cerebral, logical, intelligent and academic, not normally known for their social skills, they tend to guard their emotions. Voracious readers, they are selective with the words they use. They are impressed by arguments that are quantitative and supported by data.

They are actually normally risk averse and driven more by the need to retain control than the desire to innovate. In business, their strong drives are to win and to anticipate change.

To make a decision, they will need as much information as possible, especially about how to get from Point A to Point B. They like to look at things from all perspectives. Coupled with their risk aversion, they can be especially difficult to persuade.

Good persuasion strategies include: setting options out and allowing the Thinker to draw the inevitable conclusion; being able to present a bargain (which may be much quicker and easier for them to agree, because it is low risk; ensure the options you present are truly the best ones (as a Thinker will take more time to work out the options and, being risk averse, won’t forget a bad experience).

With a Thinker, a barrage of questions doesn’t necessarily mean hostility. Exploring things from different perspectives and needing to be convinced the risk is worth taking is how they operate. 

Buzz words to use: quality, academic, think, numbers, intelligent, plan, expert, proof.

Thinkers, like Charismatics, need more time planned in so that you can share a lot of information with them when getting them onside.

3. Brash Arrogants (19% of executives – though I really doubt we have so many in our sector!)

This group have strong personalities: possibly demanding, disruptive, disagreeable, rebellious, with an aggressive style, they’re usually described as “take charge people”. They tend to be self absorbed and to act primarily on their feelings (not that they can’t be brilliant or visionary, with it) They’re the kind of people who could have a time consuming side conversation while you’re talking to them or leave the meeting for a bit.

I don’t think this personality type needs to be an out-and-out obnoxious egotist. One of the examples they give – Larry Ellison – is described as charming by interviewees and the most out-and-out egotistical and disruptive Director of Services I’ve worked with was seen by many people as very nice (not by me – we butted heads too much) and signed her emails with her name in Lucinda Handwriting font with a kiss at the end.

Williams and Miller labelled them “sceptics” because of their tendency to launch volleys of questions at you, that come from somewhere more personal than the Thinker’s. However, if you can just deal with the situation coolly and logically, it should be fine. 

You need to be careful if you need to challenge them on something, though. You need to see a way to do it where they can save face. You’ll need to tread lightly around their ego.

Brash Arrogants place more stress on credibility of who the idea comes from than other groups, say Williams and Miller. So, as you’re often supposed to be the expert in the room on the funders, if you get the opportunity to drop in some of the research in the Trusts pages on this website, that might help a bit. Being similar to the Brash Arrogant (e.g., from the same background) will help. However if you can’t deliver credibility that they’ll readily accept, yourself, Williams and Miller advise bringing someone whom the Brash Arrogant Trusts to lend you their credibility.

Buzzwords to use: feel, grasp, power, action, suspect, trust, demand, disrupt.

The good thing with a Brash Arrogant is that you’ll know where you stand with them, they’ll take decisions more quickly and want to push forward with things.

4. Controllers (9% of all executives – though I suspect that there are actually more of them in our sector than Brash Arrogants)

Logical, unemotional, analytic and objective like Thinkers, they have big personalities like the Brash Arrogants and can even be overbearing. They are sensible individuals. They can be loners, are often self-absorbed and prone to snap judgements and remarks that alienate others.

They are the archetypal “Type X” managers. They think they’re the best at everything, don’t take the perspectives of others and even if they talk to others, don’t genuinely listen. When things go wrong, they assume it’s someone else’s fault. They’re likely to spend their time implementing their own ideas. It’s easy to think of Dilbert’s manager at this point, but Williams and Miller point out that  some leaders in the Controller category are highly effective.

The other aspect that makes them controllers is hidden fear and insecurity, which they will pretend they don’t have. Uncertainties make them uncomfortable. They are reluctant to take responsibility. They may want an inordinate amount of detail.

If you corner a controller, they will rarely capitulate. Avoid more aggressive approaches.

Often what works is to give them the information they need to convince themselves. Again, it can take time (repeated exposure to information) to ensure they come on board, as they aren’t very open and are resistant to changes that represent possible risk. 

Arguments need to be structured, linear and credible. They will assimilate detail much better that comes from experts. Unequivocal data of problems will have more impact than case study-type descriptions of the situation. (This is a good archetype for presenting things in the funder’s words, rather than your personal opinion of how the trust will see things.)

Williams and Miller’s article is great, well illustrated with examples and I can’t capture all the nuances in a page or two. I recommend you read the original online on the HBR site.

5. Followers (36% of executives)

If you can’t recognise the senior manager as one of the previous four categories, that could be because they’re a Follower – a group that doesn’t show its characteristics so readily. (That said, I think that a Controller or Brash Arrogant might also want to hide themselves a bit in our sector.)

Followers make decision based on how they’ve made them in the past or on how other trusted executives have made them. They are responsible decision makers who trust in known brands and bargains, both of which represent less risk. They want to know they won’t lose their jobs over their decision. However, followers do not want to be seen just to follow (for obvious reasons) they want to be seen to innovate.

So that means you need to present them with ideas that are innovative but proven, new but trusted, leading-edge yet somewhat safe. Think: the kind of line you might take with quite a few trusts. So, for example, ideas that have worked well elsewhere but are new to the charity or the field of work are one obviously attractive approach. Having the option to mix and match parts of (save, proven) strategies to create something original is another.

Followers are actually good at seeing the world through the eyes of others. So, they are more likely to give you a good hearing. (The people I can identify as Followers have good people skills.) However, they want something that they’ve seen work, if possible.

They’re looking for plenty of credibility from you as the person proposing the idea – or to follow their own previous approach.

Another analysis

Another analysis I’ve seen is:

• Is your executive an inclusive or non-inclusive decision-maker?
• How much detail does your executive prefer?
• Does your executive prefer a formal or informal approach?
• Is your executive a direct or indirect communicator?
• Does your executive want lots of information or only the minimum?  

Developing projects

In terms of approving projects, it’s easier for them to say, “I agree to you working up a project with X in my department” than to agree a project that they need to think through. However, they may well still want their two pence worth, which could extend to bolting on major elements to the work.

Where I can, I’ll pitch the project to them in person for a few minutes, alongside the relevant person in services. They’ll want to hear that any middle manager is on board.

If documentation is needed at an early stage, I get initial agreement for a one-page outline, with no costs or targets, setting out the need and the key elements of the model. The most important things are (1) they give the go ahead to work something up; and (2) getting enough input that they can’t completely unpack the project and propose something significantly different after the development work has been done. 

My editor, Robyn McAlister, suggested adding that they should be told that they’ll have further opportunities to influence the plan. That sounds like a great idea, except that it should be clear that the next chance to see it will be about getting the detail right, this was approval for the big ideas that are now getting built on.

Problems for us within their department

International surveys of project managers regarding why projects fail find that having a weak “sponsor” – project management jargon for the senior manager who owns this project – is a key failure reason. Conversely, as project management guri Ricordo Vargas says, a strong sponsor who you really understand and can work with can be key in sorting things out. I’ll give illustrative good and bad examples: 

• At one national charity, I’d interested the Deputy Director of Services in funding to expand our assistive tech team. He shaped the project idea and so had clearly bought into it. However, the Regional Manager (RM) he tasked with leading wouldn’t actually drive the required development work. I went back to the Deputy Director, he asked me to drive the development instead (which I was okay to do in that charity) and told the RM to leave it all to me. (This worked fine.) When there was a glitch later on that I couldn’t negotiate myself, I went to the Deputy Director and he got the local Services team involved to comply.
• On the other hand, at another charity the senior manager responsible for sponsoring projects was incredibly stretched and saw Fundraising as a minor concern. When a Lottery-funded project was re-sited with a Regional Manager who had zero interest in it and the key project post-holder left, the RM took months to readvertise the post and refused to advocate with HR for a decent advert. Our sponsor barely got involved. The first recruitment was a disaster. The same problems recurred when we tried to re-recruit, after the new, incompetent, post-holder failed their probation. We recruited a second (better) post-holder but the project was still struggling (having worked very well in the previous Region) and I spent a lot of my own time supporting the Services Manager to develop a better strategy. When he also left, the RM wanted to hand the grant back. Having barely helped during two years of problems, the senior management sponsor backed the RM’s request to SMT to give the grant to the Lottery.

As the two contrasting examples show, trying to go over more junior staff’s heads can have mixed success. It’s best to know everyone well. My experience is: 

• Senior managers are somewhat more objective, want things to work and appreciate the big picture.
• However, they can also have a loyalty to their teams, often want to delegate decisions to lower levels if possible and can prioritize their own teams and they key objectives those have, over Fundraising and their key objectives.

Problems with their support

As Ricardo Vargas recognises, there are two scenarios for this:

1. They aren’t committed, themselves. There’s a lot elsewhere in the site on this under persuasion techniques, internal politics and problem solving.
2. The senior person who’s supposed to be backing you is actually pretty weak. Then, Vargas suggests you find another informal sponsor (senior backer). For example, in the above disastrous Lottery scenario, I later found out that we ran the kinds of projects that the Regional Manager had been so unhelpful with because our CEO was very enthusiastic about them. Had I known, I’d possibly have tried to get him involved as an informal sponsor.

Go direct or go through your own hierarchy?

It’s significantly better if you can at least be in the room when the senior Services person of CEO is approached. The chances are that the manager from within Fundraising who’s trying to represent you doesn’t fully understand any of: what you need; what’s actually going on; what a good internal outcome would look like. (That’s not to say they aren’t very expert and skilled in many things. It’s just that what we do is quite often on the edge of their expertise.) As Robyn my editor pointed out, it’s good though to brief your management beforehand, so that they can really throw their weight behind you in the meeting.

For example, in the above disastrous Lottery funding scenario, my Director hadn’t thought to tell me that the issue was coming up on the Senior Management Meeting agenda, so she had no briefing from me. When it came up, she just accepted the decision because she wasn’t well placed to do otherwise.

A good (if slightly impertinent-sounding) line is: Trusts need to be treated very differently from the rest of Fundraising.

If you have to go through the hierarchy, they need a good briefing. That might look like:

• 1-2 sides of A4. It’s best to write it in a way that it will sound good to the Services Director, as well, in case it gets brought out in the meeting.
• A short oral briefing to ensure they’ve got the main points. They probably work orally a lot and it’s the only way you’ll get a sense if they’ve understood it.

Getting a few minutes with the senior manager

You can usually get them at least once during the week before everyone else gets in, after everyone else has gone home or at lunchtime. If it’s late and you can give a sense that the issue needs addressing quickly, you’ve got all the more reason to go straight to them. I’ve done some of my best business in a minute at the kettle or in the lift out of the building. There’s no gatekeeper. That means identifying at the earliest time what you need from them, so you can be opportunistic.

If you can’t see their Calendar any other way, you can start setting up a meeting and  use the Scheduling Assistant to see gaps between meetings. That means that, if you really need to just try and poke your head in for a few minutes’ chat, you can do.

Senior managers are more or less protective of their time. Systems are in palace for a reason, which you’re expected to appreciate, probably with expectations about not “just popping in”. However, there’s almost always flexibility around the edges, that you’re taking advantage of. You therefore need to be selective about when you circumvent the system.

Be good at presenting?

Most likely, your own Senior Management won’t know you that well. One way to stand out to them more might be to develop good presentation skills and look for opportunities to use them. As Dale Carnegie’s classic book on the subject, Stand and Deliver, highlighted, presentation skills create an (if anything, unreasonably) excellent impression of you. People tend to assume that, if you can put your work over well in that context, you know more than you do and are brighter and more effective than you are. It’s unlikely that anyone in Services will ever see you present, but there are occasional opportunities to create a good impression with your own senior management this way.

Difficult politics

Working with senior management is often where any difficult politics happens. (I’ve known many lovely, sincere and caring senior managers without a political bone in their bodies, but still…) Any comments on this site related to that will be on the Getting Things Done Internally web page.