Formatted Text
Speaker A Early 90s. We'd had the organization before I came and had some organizational drift because there had been an acting chief executive for a year and so that there was a lot of organization drift. So people were waiting for leadership but they weren't aware of all these different technology, different methodologies. We had 92 different nationalities on staff. Because of the nature of our business we had to have a lot of geographic staff from various geographic regions around the world. It couldn't all be North Americans or all French or all Swiss working less. So there was a range of people from a range of different nationalities and a lot also from the eastern bloc of a certain age who had only known one system in their whole life. And so they were used to running into their leaders and giving the leader the problem and the leader solved it. They never solved the problem themselves. They were just messengers even though they were senior people. And then you also had people out of tribes from the middle of Uganda or something like that who had worked their way up, who didn't know something about management and didn't know the different concept between leadership and management and what that really meant and having somewhere chiefs of tribes that were working for me now. And the chief curse decided everything. He didn't delegate and everybody just followed their instructions. So there was a lot of command and control from a lot of people from command and control, different backgrounds. So it took a bit of time to start to introduce some of these concepts. I would say that some of the more difficult ones were to bring them along. Although we did parallel. And one of my favorite management sayings is to paralyze resistance with persistence, where we had a lot of highly qualified and well educated people, war surgeons that had spent 15 years in university and had really highly trained people, physicians and other professionals. And they had a real hard time accepting that they were only stratum two people, not stratum five and stratum six. That took a lot of time and I don't think I was able to convince everybody but at least 85% and of course we also amended the performance and compensation systems to kind of reinforce the appropriate behavior so that kind of helped it along. But I think there was always a certain amount of skepticism among a small percentage of professionals who had been in university a very long time and thought that they were superstars. They were superstars in what they did. But in terms of organizational design, in terms of managing, being responsible for other people's work, it was a stretch for them. The principles are the same. I think it's a matter of how you deliver the message at times. You also need to take some of these principles and methodologies and to make them understood, maybe use different language in order to make them understood and use different anecdotes and different stories to demonstrate how they work. And you have to use a lot of extra effort. I know possibly unlike the for profit area, this had to process and time. It probably took longer than it would in any for profit organization. And also, too, being an emergency relief organization, we were running big know, Europe was back on the emergency relief field with ex Yugoslavia breaking up and millions of people traveling with after 93, 94, you still had the effects of the Berlin Wall coming down. So you had all that pent up demand for something different in the Eastern Bloc countries. And so we were dealing with major socioeconomic cris and fighting in the Caucasus and the five stands. And of course, during that period, we also 1994, we had Rwanda and we were taking care of millions of people in refugee camps in Tanzania and in Burundi and in the Congo. So it was like in trying to get in this organizational change, it was like painting a destroyer at full battle stations in the middle of a hurricane. Now you try painting a destroyer at that speed at full battle stations roaring. That's what it was. And that was right. So it took a little bit longer than it should have, but we also had the day to day to do then people's lives were at stake and depended upon us. So it was quite the challenge. And then dealing with that also the other element is the other variable is that we operated in four working languages. We operate in English, French, Spanish and Arabic. So everything had to be translated and interpreted in other languages because you didn't have everybody that spoke all those four languages. There were a few that did, and most people spoke at least two and a good proportion spoke three. But all four was another challenge. So you had 92 different nationalities worldwide, from North Operation people we had in North Korea to all over the world, four working languages and you're running emergency relief operations and dealing with some of the worst human tragedies this world has seen. So it was it was an interesting challenge. We went from when I first got there in late 92, 93, we were raising mobilizing, about just over $400 million worth of resources for our relief operations and development projects. And we had at the time 149 National Red Cross Red Crescent societies that were members with another 30 in formation. 30 in formation mean that they hadn't yet reached a level of competency that they could be recognized and admitted as a member. And part of it was also linked to whether or not the government or the state had also ratified the Geneva Conventions, the international humanitarian laws, which were part of it, which was a precursor for a National Red Cross or Red Cross society to be admitted into our membership. But we still worked with them and treated them as if they were recognized, but they didn't have the full rights. And we were at that point also assisting 15 million people in 93. In about five to six years later, we were then mobilizing over $610,000,000. So that was a 50% increase. We doubled the amount of beneficiaries from 15 to 30 million people yearly being assisted. We moved up from 149 recognized in the member societies up to 176, and the staffing complement, if anything, slightly dropped. So one has to say there is an efficiency there. And then the staff surveys have kind of said when I first got there, in terms of measuring some baseline compared to satisfaction levels in 98, 99 were like night and day. So we were handling a greater volume of business, much more effective and inefficient and assisting doubly amount of people with a slightly reduced complement than when I first went there in 92, 93. So one has to say, and to be able to mobilize resources, we fundraise for that money. That's not money that you kind of just was there. You had to run around and get the grain and credibility of governments and intergovernmental organizations to mobilize that level of resources. You Sam.