Believe It or Not!
Believe It Or Not… Susan Jordan, GPC, Portland Public Schools Becky Crump, GPC, Jefferson County Public Schools Johna Rodgers, GPC, Johna Rodgers Consulting
• What just happened? • Did they really SAY that?
•Did I say that? •Do they really want me to DO that?
•When, how, and where did I miss my cue? •Will I be able to laugh about this later?
Believe It or Not! Session Goals Participants will:
• Participate in the selection of best-cases responses to worsecase scenarios • Learn strategies that may mitigate poor decisions made by others, • Use an Effectiveness Scale based on their own reaction tendencies, and • Increase their capacity for one or more individual GPC competencies.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 1 • Setting: Project Director (Dean) charged with multiple counts of fraud (embezzling) – funds received through US Department of Education • In attendance: NA • At stake: At trial of co-conspirator, grant writer asked specific questions about what was written in the proposal 6 years after proposal had been submitted. Grant writer who co-wrote proposal submitted to ED interviewed by FBI and testified in trial of co-conspirator.
Does the Response Further Your Professional Competence? Is there any shift in knowledge or awareness of:
• Organizational development? • Standards of ethical practice? • Grant management practices? • Cultivating and maintaining relations with funders? • Professionalism?
Believe It or Not! Scenario 2 • Setting: School district meeting room, long table • In attendance: One side: District’s CAO, HR liaison teachers’ union, grant professional on one side; other side: lead union representative and two union representatives (seething). • At stake: Future of a four-district proposal for a $25 million Race to the Top grant to support college and career achievement for >10K students in grades 6-12 at lowperforming schools.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 3 • Setting: The boss really wants to get a couple of highly-competitive research grants. The pre-applications (required) are due in five days, but no one in the agency can agree what the focus should be (i.e., no program). • In attendance: Grant pros (2), boss, other leadership • At stake: It’s Thursday, and the pre-apps with a logic model are due on Tuesday. So leadership staff begin brainstorming new ideas for the grants. Unfortunately, no one has time to help develop the program. They will all be out of the office on Friday, and then it will be the weekend. But we must submit at least two very complicated pre-applications.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 4 • Setting: Faculty member forged a signature on a grant application because she “ran out of time” to get the signature and meet deadline. Mailed application with forged signature. • In attendance: Grant Director, Department Chair, Dean, and Faculty Member • At stake: Long standing relationship with funder and faculty’s position at university.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 5 • Setting: Grants Office • In attendance: Grant professional, project developer • At stake: Submission of a federal grant for $2,000,000 • Believe It or Not: Worked until 3 am before proposal due (at 1:30 pm) then went home to sleep, setting the alarm for 6:30 am. Slept through alarm. Arrived at 11 am. Not enough time. Could not submit by 1:30. What to tell people?
Believe It or Not! Scenario 6 • Setting: Leadership finds out about a new federal grant opportunity— one that the grants office knew about but decided wasn’t appropriate. The grants office believed it to be outside the organization’s area of expertise and, very likely, its mission. But the boss really wants it. Really, really, really, really. And now, there’s < 4 weeks until it’s due. • In attendance: Grant pros (2), boss, other leadership • At stake: Whether the time and energy should be spent on a grant that a) won’t win, b) falls outside the mission, c) wastes time that could be spent on other grants, d) border on “money hungry,” and e) might be unethical (given all the points above)
•.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 7 • Setting: Six grant applications due by 4:30 pm in state office (45 minute drive). At 3:00 pm, district’s attorney decides superintendent cannot sign the applications without board approval even though that had been the practice in the past • In attendance: Grant writer, community partner representatives • At stake: Two being submitted by the district; 4 being submitted by community partners that had to be signed by superintendent as well; applications did not get signed by superintendent and were not submitted.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 8 • Setting: The i3 program is launched and leadership is convinced the agency has the backbone / expertise / knowledge to apply for the upper-most dollar amount. The grant pro does weeks of research and cannot make the case; an potential evaluator for the proposal backs out, saying the agency’s case is not strong enough. Eight weeks has been wasted. • In attendance: Grant pro, boss • At stake: The proposal goes from a potential $25 million grant to reform 510 districts to a $5 million for 1 or 2 districts (lowest level). Now, there’s just two weeks remaining to submit a proposal, and the grant pro is expected to trash it all and start anew.
•.
Personalized Effectiveness Scale • Introduction of the instrument • EIGHT categories with FOUR questions each • Address Core Character Leadership Problem solving
Control Reflection GPC Competencies
• High versus low range of scores • Balanced versus unbalanced range of scores
Believe It or Not! Review Did you……
• Participate in the selection of best-case responses to worsecase scenarios, • Learn strategies that may mitigate poor decisions by others • Use an effectiveness scale based on their own reaction tendencies, and • Increase their capacity for one or more individual GPC competencies?
Believe It or Not! – Susan Jordan, GPC, Portland Public Schools Becky Crump, GPC, Jefferson County Public Schools Johna Rodgers, GPC, Johna Rodgers Consulting
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
• What just happened? • Did they really SAY that?
•Did I say that? •Do they really want me to DO that?
•When, how, and where did I miss my cue? •Will I be able to laugh about this later?
Believe It or Not! Session Goals Participants will:
• Participate in the selection of best-cases responses to worsecase scenarios • Learn strategies that may mitigate poor decisions made by others, • Use an Effectiveness Scale based on their own reaction tendencies, and • Increase their capacity for one or more individual GPC competencies.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 1 • Setting: Project Director (Dean) charged with multiple counts of fraud (embezzling) – funds received through US Department of Education • In attendance: NA • At stake: At trial of co-conspirator, grant writer asked specific questions about what was written in the proposal 6 years after proposal had been submitted. Grant writer who co-wrote proposal submitted to ED interviewed by FBI and testified in trial of co-conspirator.
Does the Response Further Your Professional Competence? Is there any shift in knowledge or awareness of:
• Organizational development? • Standards of ethical practice? • Grant management practices? • Cultivating and maintaining relations with funders? • Professionalism?
Believe It or Not! Scenario 2 • Setting: School district meeting room, long table • In attendance: One side: District’s CAO, HR liaison teachers’ union, grant professional on one side; other side: lead union representative and two union representatives (seething). • At stake: Future of a four-district proposal for a $25 million Race to the Top grant to support college and career achievement for >10K students in grades 6-12 at lowperforming schools.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 3 • Setting: The boss really wants to get a couple of highly-competitive research grants. The pre-applications (required) are due in five days, but no one in the agency can agree what the focus should be (i.e., no program). • In attendance: Grant pros (2), boss, other leadership • At stake: It’s Thursday, and the pre-apps with a logic model are due on Tuesday. So leadership staff begin brainstorming new ideas for the grants. Unfortunately, no one has time to help develop the program. They will all be out of the office on Friday, and then it will be the weekend. But we must submit at least two very complicated pre-applications.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 4 • Setting: Faculty member forged a signature on a grant application because she “ran out of time” to get the signature and meet deadline. Mailed application with forged signature. • In attendance: Grant Director, Department Chair, Dean, and Faculty Member • At stake: Long standing relationship with funder and faculty’s position at university.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 5 • Setting: Grants Office • In attendance: Grant professional, project developer • At stake: Submission of a federal grant for $2,000,000 • Believe It or Not: Worked until 3 am before proposal due (at 1:30 pm) then went home to sleep, setting the alarm for 6:30 am. Slept through alarm. Arrived at 11 am. Not enough time. Could not submit by 1:30. What to tell people?
Believe It or Not! Scenario 6 • Setting: Leadership finds out about a new federal grant opportunity— one that the grants office knew about but decided wasn’t appropriate. The grants office believed it to be outside the organization’s area of expertise and, very likely, its mission. But the boss really wants it. Really, really, really, really. And now, there’s < 4 weeks until it’s due. • In attendance: Grant pros (2), boss, other leadership • At stake: Whether the time and energy should be spent on a grant that a) won’t win, b) falls outside the mission, c) wastes time that could be spent on other grants, d) border on “money hungry,” and e) might be unethical (given all the points above)
•.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 7 • Setting: Six grant applications due by 4:30 pm in state office (45 minute drive). At 3:00 pm, district’s attorney decides superintendent cannot sign the applications without board approval even though that had been the practice in the past • In attendance: Grant writer, community partner representatives • At stake: Two being submitted by the district; 4 being submitted by community partners that had to be signed by superintendent as well; applications did not get signed by superintendent and were not submitted.
Believe It or Not! Scenario 8 • Setting: The i3 program is launched and leadership is convinced the agency has the backbone / expertise / knowledge to apply for the upper-most dollar amount. The grant pro does weeks of research and cannot make the case; an potential evaluator for the proposal backs out, saying the agency’s case is not strong enough. Eight weeks has been wasted. • In attendance: Grant pro, boss • At stake: The proposal goes from a potential $25 million grant to reform 510 districts to a $5 million for 1 or 2 districts (lowest level). Now, there’s just two weeks remaining to submit a proposal, and the grant pro is expected to trash it all and start anew.
•.
Personalized Effectiveness Scale • Introduction of the instrument • EIGHT categories with FOUR questions each • Address Core Character Leadership Problem solving
Control Reflection GPC Competencies
• High versus low range of scores • Balanced versus unbalanced range of scores
Believe It or Not! Review Did you……
• Participate in the selection of best-case responses to worsecase scenarios, • Learn strategies that may mitigate poor decisions by others • Use an effectiveness scale based on their own reaction tendencies, and • Increase their capacity for one or more individual GPC competencies?
Believe It or Not! – Susan Jordan, GPC, Portland Public Schools Becky Crump, GPC, Jefferson County Public Schools Johna Rodgers, GPC, Johna Rodgers Consulting
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
