Rob Marx serves as Chief Executive Officer of Rosemont Center -a treatment facility for troubled, abused, neglected and abandoned youth. Rosemont offers programs and services to help the youth and families cope with a myriad of problems. Rosemont is located on a 35-acre campus in northeast Columbus and is a nonprofit organization. The Rosemont Center has been serving the central Ohio community since 1865.

Under the leadership of Rob Marx, the Executive Board of Rosemont recently completed a year long strategic study that brought about a vision of independence - Rosemont acquired the land and buildings from the Sisters of the Good Shepherd after 135 years of ownership by the Catholic organization. Rosemont is now an independent organization, governed by an executive board.

This journey was made possible by the strength in the heritage of Rosemont and in Rob's leadership - a balance of success that many other businesses can bring about through strong and effective leadership.

Interview Questions:

EL: How does leadership in the "nonprofit" world differ from the characteristics necessary to lead a "for-profit" organization?

RM: There is more similarity than difference in the nonprofit to for-profit worlds. The main difference is in the nonprofit world is we have tended to be more mission driven. The for-profit are now looking closely at the nonprofit and are copying a lot from us… asking themselves if their plans for profit are in line with their values and mission statements.

EL: as a sidebar to this question: In the past we did not see for- profit organizations put their mission statement out to employees or customers. It is now happening more, do you think this is the "trendy" thing to do or have they realized that the sharing and matching has value?

RM: I think it definitely has value. The for-profit world very quickly discards things that don't improve their bottom line. And, people are asking corporations these questions today… what are your values, what difference do you make to me?

EL: How do you instill leadership into your management team in a nonprofit environment?

RM: For me leadership comes out of a basic leadership philosophy - a team primacy approach. It has to fit in the organization from top to bottom. Standards are set at the senior level and modeled throughout the administrative level.

One part of this philosophy is to help people come together and look at their role and have them see past their "program" responsibilities. Our business is to help families and young people change and solve problems, so that has to be shared by all of us. We all have a responsibility to be helpful, to work with, to consult with any part of our program that is not performing at a level we can all be proud of. Our support associates must also understand and share this mission. If you are the Chief Financial Officer, the head of Human Resources or the Head of Maintenance, you understand the work you do helps perpetuate the mission.

My leadership style is one of helping people understand what they need to do. I have found a hierarchy doesn't work very well. The best plans that I lay are not going to be implemented if people don't have a basic understanding of the plans and actions that can lead to success. The plans may get implemented if I totally direct them, but then we are not following a mission or sharing values and long term - that will drain all parties. I really don't have all of the answers for our organization - it is far too complex and we benefit from the ideas of many.

Most of us in today's business world believe that information is power & if that is true…then where I want the information and power to be is out among the entire team. This does not mean taking every intimate detail to the line level because they would be overwhelmed with information, but the more information that is shared with most people, the better any organization, will be run.

EL: Is it different than the for-profit business environment?

RM: The issues we are faced with in the nonprofit world are the very same as the for-profit world. We are just as concerned with productivity, quality, outcome, efficiencies, cash flow, reserves, marketing, public relations and our customer perceptions as a manufacturer or distributor. Our raw product, our outcome, resources and our customer are all one component - people. This is far more fragile than steel for a major manufacturer, but we still have to follow our product through the same processes a for-profit business does today or none of us will exist in the future- all margins are simply too thin.

The nonprofit sector does have a history of doing more with less and since we take public dollars, we come under more scrutiny. We typically have had to figure out how to do more with less.

The for-profit sector has come to look at us for ideas on how to stretch resources, how to manage people resources - retain people. We have certainly had a history of not being able to pay the salaries the for-profit sector can offer so as I leader, I am faced with huge job satisfaction issues - a challenge for any leadership style.

EL: Is individual leadership stifled in the nonprofit field where you are governed by a board of executives who often direct major decisions?

RM: Not ideally, the whole issue of board development is key to the nonprofit world. There have been many nonprofits that have been doomed due to really poor board leadership - agency relationships. There are others that have survived due to those relationships. The board has the responsibility for governcy to be sure we are meeting our mission, to be challenging and supportive. This is really a partnership relationship in its true form.

There are CEO's that are very cautious and limited with how much information they give the board so the board does not take over the day-to-day management. I don't follow that philosophy - I will lead the day-to-day operations and look to them to provide support and concurrence with ideas that benefit our organization.

EL: Rob, it appears that your participatory leadership style works well in the environment because you want to team up with the board. What if your leadership style were more controlling, dominant in the relationship? Would this picture not be painted differently?

RM: Often what happens is that an agency's success is so dependent on that one person's successes, their charisma that when that person leaves, the organization is no longer on the map. To build longevity for any business, it takes a lot of good people in broad roles to build around the strength of the leader.

Our organization recently held a strategic planning retreat and I was moving around the group, drawing in on parts of many conversations and overheard a discussion on leadership succession - they were talking about how to develop people to take over or support my role as may be needed. And rather than be threatened, as a more dominant - ego driven leaders might be: I was encouraged that we were building a forum for leadership development. Again, every business must develop a forum to develop the leaders of tomorrow.

EL: What role model(s) have helped you develop your leadership style over the years?

RM: I can't name any one person, but I can give great benefit to many people I either worked for or with over the lifetime of my career. Much of my background was in the hospital environment -that is about as structured and hierarchal as it gets. What I learned was how ineffective the structure was. People were often not drawn in to ideas and building of concepts. I decided to take that to a different level and over the years my strong participatory leadership style evolved and became my own personal signature. I learned the great art of listening and learning in balance.

EL: How much do you rely on intuition or gut instinct?

RM: A lot! Intuition is really an unconscious thought from a memory bank - our brains work so fast that intuition is drawn from a multitude of past experiences for an on the spot decision. I have made decisions contrary to my gut instincts over the years and lived to regret it more than once. Today, I use it as a factor to weigh a decision more when something "doesn't feel right".

EL: You deal with "disadvantaged kids" - or so society would label them. How does leadership get communicated to these kids as potential leaders of tomorrow?

RM: Kids see people work together in teams here every day - and often it is a very diverse team, so they see them selves shadowed in success by association.

Often a student will walk by me and make a comment such as "there's the boss" and I always stop them and ask them if they were boss "what would you do differently"? It catches them off guard and challenges their thinking. Not to mention I get some pretty good ideas on occasion!

One thing that develops good leaders is when they know their ideas are valued, that people want to know what you think on a particular issue. The kids see people that look like them in leadership roles - again the diversity piece. They see themselves reflected in the leadership of this organization and that lets them imagine themselves in these roles - it opens up more possibilities for them.

We take this a step further in our treatment style - we let the kids know they are here to help one another. Peer leadership. They can be a leader in their group - they can help one another make good decisions. They have to slow down to think through their ideas now that they know it will affect others. We use a leadership model at the adolescent level with adult expectations. That is the real world they will be involved in as they move on in life.

EL:How do you stress" giving to others" in your leadership lessons?

RM: All kids here must be involved in some service project. It tells them they are not here just to accept services, but to give back. This can be as simple as time at a nursing home, working at the human society to clean dog cages or making dinners for the local fire department.

I believe that if a person is always the recipient of help, they will not develop a high degree of self worth. But when they see they have something to offer to someone else, they start to feel better about themselves.

Some time back I read a book on service leadership - at the time I didn't understand what it meant and yet as I read the book, I found myself saying, "Yes that makes sense". I began correlating the concept to what I do as a leader. It makes a difference in how you perceive yourself and your work and it expands beyond the "I".

As a leader, we have to make hard decisions but it is how we carry it out that is important. A sense of service underscores a more effective way to deliver a hard message.

EL: If you had time with a "leader of tomorrow" and you could only tell him/her the highlights of your lessons in leadership: what would they be? What would be the most important lesson of all and why?

RM: You better be having fun at what you are doing. If what you are doing does not let you smile, provide humor through the course of the day - do something different.

Without some fun, I find I am back to seeing problems as adversities not opportunities. You can't run an organization without problems. As a leader, I must use those problems to move the organization along - to turn it in to some long-term benefit. That strain would sap the energies that drive me to lead effectively.

EL: Every day we read about young people coming in to the nonprofit world. In some way or another: They are bringing the desire to participate, to give back to their communities. What about these young people and these experiences parallel leadership?

RM: This desire to give parallels leadership. In many instances, I sense these young people found tremendous success in their work, but not satisfaction in what they were doing. Increased profit margins were not enough - the decrease in inventory wasn't enough - reducing receivables by 300% was not enough. If they measured success by their possessions, they found themselves lacking. It takes courage to recognize this.

I think it is unfortunate that there are people who have found out they can be this successful in an organization and yet the organization has not yet discovered it can be both - successful and socially responsible and give their r employees an opportunity to contribute to something greater.

EL: Rob, what would you like to add that would help our emerging leaders better understand the tremendous journey you have led in the recent transition of taking Rosemont from 135 years under the leadership of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd to its status today as an independent run organization?

RM: We changed the nature of the beaurocracy without changing the mission. My goal was that we maintain the history and mission because something certainly had to be very right for it to last and be effective for 135 years.

My participatory leadership style has certainly been a key piece to the success of the transition, but I have benefited, as many leaders do, from a culture that was not lost to change. A conflicting culture would always ask, "Which one wins out"? - That never came in to play in this transition because of the leadership style and blend of culture.

Often people think a nonprofit can function without accountability and that it runs on the "good feeling" rule of order; but it can't, long-term.

A CEO in any organization has multiple responsibilities and the only way I know for a CEO to have an influence on all functions is to recognize they can not do all of the work themselves - that they need to have others who are well prepared to be accountable for their individual contributions.

A participatory leadership style does not mean everyone gets a vote and the decision is made on that basis. It is, however about getting consensus from every responsible party and holding one another accountable. This has and will continue to be my leadership because it has proven to make a difference.

Comments about this article?	Would you like to contribute an article ?
Discuss it in our virtual community.	Tell a friend about this article.

© Copyright, EmergingLeader.com 1998-2008 All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy