Big Picture and Little Picture

Both the big picture and the little picture are important. Forest and trees. Got it. 

But why do we insist that the big picture is the responsibility of the "leaders" in an organization, and the details are the domain of others?

Okay, I get that you can't have everyone do everything. If the top of your organizational chart is constantly arguing about the shape of the centerpiece or whether the brochure cover should be laser blue or oxygen blue, then they are micromanaging (those are two color options on the Mini Cooper, by the way). And no, the intern doesn't get to start a new $100,000 initiative without someone ensuring it makes sense with the organization's strategic direction.

But I don't think we've actually figured out successful ways to manage micro and macro in most organizations. A statement in Joe Roeminicki's post on Acronym got me thinking about this. Joe wants to hear how association executives deal with members who come to the CEO with "urgent" matters that are, in fact, more little-picture issues that shouldn't be occupying the time of the big kahuna. Joe quotes Lisa Junker:

what might seem "inconsequential" to the CEO, who has to worry about the big picture, matters dearly to the individual member. This is a frustrating, eternal truth of leadership.

I disagree. This is a frustrating, eternal truth of hierarchy, not of leadership. Leadership is about a system's capacity to shape its future. For that capacity to be substantial, both the big picture and little pictures need attention. So the question is, who attends to what?

In a hierarchy, there is a natural tendency to go "up" to get problems solved. The member, who encounters something "small" that matters dearly to her, goes to the CEO to get the problem solved. The more it matters to me, the higher in the hierarchy I should go.

That's the breakdown. Why aren't these problems being solved closer to the problem? The CEO should absolutely care about these "inconsequential" things, but not with the intent to personally take care of the problem (even if that is what the member wants, or the staff for that matter), but with the intent to enable the member, other volunteers, and other staff to solve that (and similar) problems on an ongoing basis. If we're not learning (as a system) as we solve the problems, we won't actually make progress.

Comments

[Joe Rominiecki]

Great point here, Jamie. The difference between hierarchy and leadership is indeed an important one.

Perhaps the challenge is to create a system in which everyone understands how the big picture and the little picture weave together (as that image in the text above neatly alludes to), so that everyone can together make better decisions for the organization's future (and faster, too).

I'm curious if this understanding in an association environment extends to members' understanding, as well. If members have problems with "little-picture" issues, is it incumbent upon staff and volunteer leaders to help members understand how those concerns relate to larger ones? Or will members, just being human, always be most concerned with what most closely affects them?

[Jamie Notter]

Yes! A challenge is to create a system in which everyone understands how the big picture and little picture weave together. Though I still think there is room for members to be most concerned with what most closely affects them. As Executive Director, frankly, I'm concerned with what mostly affects me (industry trends, for example, not badge spellings). The capacity to weave needs to be built regardless of where your concern is.