I'm finally getting back to the No Kill Conference 2009 and finishing up my summary of the best workshop I attended, which was called Overcoming Internal Obstacles to Success. From what I have seen, most of the obstacles to shelter success are internal, and the way forward to pushing through these obstacles is right in the hands of that shelter's leadership ... mainly the shelter's director.
Still, the ultimate responsibility goes higher than that. This director is a hired person. In a privately run shelter, the non-profit's board of directors hires the executive director, and they are ultimately responsible for this person's performance. In a municipal shelter such as our own, it is our City and County leaders who hire the executive director and are responsible for the way the shelter runs. In our particular case, a shelter oversight board was formed that consists of three representatives from City government, three representatives from County government, and two non-voting members -- the City manager and the County manager. This board appointed a chairman of the board, but it does not assign officer roles similar to those of a non-profit board.
The board's agent-in-charge at the shelter facility is their executive director. That role is of utmost importance. The tone and leadership set by this person permeates down through the rest of the employees and then to the public this facility serves.
At the No Kill Conference 2009, we had the luck to hear presentations by this nation's top executive directors, and one of these is Bonney Brown from the Nevada Humane Society (NHS). She came to NHS from Best Friends, and she brought all that positive energy with her. She is also an avid reader of management books and gives leadership much of her time and effort. Her slide presentation on overcoming internal obstacles included lots of great quotes such as this:
"I am personally convinced that one person can be a change catalyst, a 'transformer' in any situation, any organization. Such an individual is yeast that can leaven an entire loaf. It requires vision, initiative, patience, respect, persistence, courage, and faith to be a transforming leader." -- Stephen R. Covey
Leaders like Brown overcome adversity and obstacles by working hard at doing so and trying their best to always remain calm, professional, and courteous and keep their personal feelings out of the equation. That is not an easy feat, but she offers some tricks of the trade to help others accomplish this.
She said it starts with acknowledging some basic things. You have no control over others, yet the way you respond to others is important, and self-control is a must. Being defensive in the face of criticism gets you nowhere, no matter who is offering that criticism. It is best to ask lots of questions, ask the person for advice and what they'd do, and then reflect that back. Focus on the content, not emotion or feelings. That said, it is important to empathize with the person. Thank them if you can, and assume sincerity on their part (even if you suspect they may be lying or being malicious). Look for the common ground.
If you did mess up, offer a sincere apology and explain how you'll address the situation differently in the future or how you'll address the situation with your staff. Take ownership and responsibility. You can then ask the person to let you give or offer your view of the content. Look for what will make it better.
In the face of very angry or negative energy, try your best to stop it and redirect that energy into a more calm and positive place. Never give angry or negative energy in return. Being calm yourself will help calm the whole situation down. Demonstrate goodwill by really listening and talking less (especially at first). This is a very preventative measure as well. You never want to let a conversation escalate into an argument; this does not make you look like a positive leader to anyone -- that person, your staff, or anyone else that is around.
Whatever the resolution is of the original content, share your plan. Share success and congratulate the person or persons who are part of the success.
Most important is this bottom line for any shelter leader wanting to turn things around:
ALWAYS BE TRANSPARENT.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Shelters like ours give No Kill a bad name
No Kill is one of those terms that is very misused and misunderstood, even among us animal lovers. Just like any strong term that brings a vision in one's mind, No Kill has been misused so often that its definition has become murky. This is further confused by many powerful national animal groups attacking the misunderstood or horribly applied version of the term in practice. More confusion comes in when you see shelters such as ours and others that are sad places akin to hoarding using the term No Kill to define their operations. It's no wonder the term causes ill will and confusion.
In light of the recent misleading comments about No Kill made by Anonymous on this blog, we need to get back to some dictionary definitions of terms we use and to compare and contrast what this blog is talking about when it uses the term No Kill. The way successful shelters operate is the antithesis of what we have at our shelter now and in these examples that groups like PETA use to mislead their supporters about No Kill. That's the anti-No Kill propaganda this Anonymous commenter is spreading here.
Here are some definitions of terms we need to keep in mind:
Open-admission: animal shelters that take in all homeless animals in their community.
Limited-admission: animal shelters or rescues/sanctuaries that take in a limited number of animals; all have different guidelines for animals they will and will not accept and how many they can take in.
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
Euthanize: the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
The way limited-admission shelters and rescues/santuaries operate varies from one to the other. Those who attack No Kill use examples of limited-admission shelters that call themselves No Kill as the only example of No Kill. They are No Kill in the sense that they do not put down healthy or treatable animals, but these facilities and operations are not what I refer to in this blog and in my advocacy. It is a given, to me, that any limited-admission shelter or faciliy should not be killing its animals.
My No Kill advocacy refers to animal shelters and communities whose open-admission shelters and other animal-welfare stakeholders work together to reduce thier overall kill rates to 20 percent and less. It does not mean these communities do not euthanize those animals that are deemed vicious or irremediably suffering after equitable health and behavioral evaluations. That would be cruel and neglectful if a shelter did not offer euthanasia in the dictionary-definition sense of the term.
I am referring to open-admission shelters that are legitimate safety nets for the homeless animals in their care and appropriately and fully implement the No Kill Equation listed at right. They do exist ... these good examples ... just as bad examples such as our shelters and others exist, too. Many are next door to us, such as in El Paso. Bad examples are the majority at this time, but many are working hard to add more good examples into the mix.
What our community's leaders need to do is some serious research to get beyond the high-level terminology and into the nuts and bolts of what makes a good animal shelter tick. What do they do, how to do they do it, how do they operate, and what policies and protocols/procedures do they have in place? This is the business model we need to follow. It's not that hard to figure out, and they could also go visit places to see success first-hand.
It is clear to anyone who is not clueless about progressive sheltering who has walked into our shelter the stark difference in these terms, how far we still have to go, and how some ways in which our shelter operates are in direct opposition to a shelter headed in the No Kill direction. That our community has a long way to go is an understatement.
In light of the recent misleading comments about No Kill made by Anonymous on this blog, we need to get back to some dictionary definitions of terms we use and to compare and contrast what this blog is talking about when it uses the term No Kill. The way successful shelters operate is the antithesis of what we have at our shelter now and in these examples that groups like PETA use to mislead their supporters about No Kill. That's the anti-No Kill propaganda this Anonymous commenter is spreading here.
Here are some definitions of terms we need to keep in mind:
Open-admission: animal shelters that take in all homeless animals in their community.
Limited-admission: animal shelters or rescues/sanctuaries that take in a limited number of animals; all have different guidelines for animals they will and will not accept and how many they can take in.
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
Euthanize: the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
The way limited-admission shelters and rescues/santuaries operate varies from one to the other. Those who attack No Kill use examples of limited-admission shelters that call themselves No Kill as the only example of No Kill. They are No Kill in the sense that they do not put down healthy or treatable animals, but these facilities and operations are not what I refer to in this blog and in my advocacy. It is a given, to me, that any limited-admission shelter or faciliy should not be killing its animals.
My No Kill advocacy refers to animal shelters and communities whose open-admission shelters and other animal-welfare stakeholders work together to reduce thier overall kill rates to 20 percent and less. It does not mean these communities do not euthanize those animals that are deemed vicious or irremediably suffering after equitable health and behavioral evaluations. That would be cruel and neglectful if a shelter did not offer euthanasia in the dictionary-definition sense of the term.
I am referring to open-admission shelters that are legitimate safety nets for the homeless animals in their care and appropriately and fully implement the No Kill Equation listed at right. They do exist ... these good examples ... just as bad examples such as our shelters and others exist, too. Many are next door to us, such as in El Paso. Bad examples are the majority at this time, but many are working hard to add more good examples into the mix.
What our community's leaders need to do is some serious research to get beyond the high-level terminology and into the nuts and bolts of what makes a good animal shelter tick. What do they do, how to do they do it, how do they operate, and what policies and protocols/procedures do they have in place? This is the business model we need to follow. It's not that hard to figure out, and they could also go visit places to see success first-hand.
It is clear to anyone who is not clueless about progressive sheltering who has walked into our shelter the stark difference in these terms, how far we still have to go, and how some ways in which our shelter operates are in direct opposition to a shelter headed in the No Kill direction. That our community has a long way to go is an understatement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
