014 The Decision After the Decision | World Relief President & CEO Myal Greene

Myal Greene inherited an organization with a mission statement that everyone loved. World Relief had run on that mission statement for fifteen years. Internal staff admired it. External donors knew it. Myal knew it needed to change anyway.

This conversation is about the eighteen-month, discerning, board-engaged process. Myal walks through how the decision surfaced during strategic planning, why he never saw himself as the decision maker but as the person facilitating the board toward a good decision, and how he handled staff who were terrified of the process.

But while Myal thought he was deciding about a mission statement, he was actually making the decision after the decision.

A single upstream choice forces a cascade of downstream effects not fully grasped. Strategy. How the organization raises money. Who it hires. How it allocates capital. Years later, World Relief is still living into the consequences.

We also talk about hiring for culture addition rather than culture fit, and why Myal considers capital allocation the most underrated decision a nonprofit CEO makes.

Myal Greene is President and CEO of World Relief, a global Christian humanitarian organization founded 80 years ago that works around the world and across the US as one of the major refugee resettlement agencies. He spent fourteen years at the organization before stepping into the CEO role five years ago.

Transcript

Consequential Decisions as a CEO

Adam Jeske 0:05

Nonprofit CEOs are constantly making consequential decisions, often under pressure or in isolation. I'm Adam Jesky, the Nonprofit CEO Advisor, and this is the Nonprofit CEO Podcast, where CEOs talk about the decisions they carry. Today, our guest is Miles Green, the CEO of World Relief. Miles, what is World Relief for those who are not familiar with your organization?

Myal Greene 0:27

World Relief is a global Christian humanitarian organization that is dedicated to fulfilling and living out our mission to boldly engage the world's greatest crises in partnership with the church.

Adam Jeske 0:37

Miles, tell us about a consequential decision that you've made as the CEO at World Relief.

Myal Greene 0:43

Well, probably the most significant decision or set of decisions that have been a part of it in my tenure at World Relief has been the adjustments that we made to World Relief's mission and vision about two and a half years ago. And so we really began that process born out of recognition. We'd had the same mission statement for a decade and a half. We had real strong admiration for that mission within our stakeholders, internally and externally. But we also recognized as leaders and saw a trend going where some of the things that had driven our work in the past were no longer valid. And Ronnie did make some updates there. And so our old mission statement, going from something focused on empower the local church to serve the most vulnerable, really we we stepped into a new statement, which was boldly engage the world's greatest part crises in partnership with the church. And we got to really that decision and recognition that much of the work that we had done with the church, we wanted to see evolve and change over time as the capacity of the church globally has developed, has become higher capacity, has grown in its abilities. The chance for us to intentionally move from the church to being something that needs to be empowered and our old mission statement to a an equal footing partner. And that was a big piece of that and who we wanted to become as an organization, what that is. We also looked back historically what has defined us as an 80-year-old organization and really leaned into this recognition that for 80 years we have always found ourselves walking hand in hand, side by side with the local church. But really, we we saw that whatever the world's biggest crisis had been, whether it was the crisis that founded World Relief, which was responding to the needs of churches in Europe amidst a displacement crisis or responding to the HIV-AIDS crisis in Africa, or welcoming Southeast Asians come to the United States as refugees in the 1980s, and many other instances, we were always stepping into the world's biggest crises. And so we adopted this new language and really have seen what I would say consequences to that is the significance that that change has affected strategy, it's affected programming priorities, it's affected who we who we fundraise from, how we communicate with donors, what that looks like, and has really had a series of follow-on consequences to that decision that I think are notable and significant.

Adam Jeske 3:02

Was there a particular precipitating event, incident, conversation that led to the decision to engage that question? Why did you take the question up? Um, how did you get moved into that decision-making season?

Myal Greene 3:17

Yeah, I think, you know, actually where I would say what was kind of a driver behind that is we were sitting down and leaning into well, what is our next strategic plan going to be? And as we entered that conversation, we actually kind of had this recognition of is the current mission what we want to build a strategy behind? Or is there something that that who world relief is and how we should engage in the world? And is our historic legacy and what really we felt was an organizational calling still aligned and accurate and as encapsulated in that mission statement as it was? And so so that really kind of raised some questions among our executive team, you know, uh uh from a governance perspective, at something at the depth of mission and vision really needs your board engagement very early on in the process. And so kind of just to say, hey, we're even thinking about exploring this, kind of went back to having that conversation with our board, discussing what that would look like, and even kind of getting their blessing to open up that conversation, look at it in a management team, put it back on future board meeting agendas to begin that conversation. And it really sparked almost a year-long process that we had to go into making that decision. But, you know, I never saw myself as the decision maker in that process, but as someone who was facilitating

Mission and Vision Changes

Myal Greene 4:38

helping the board make that decision well and bringing the right information and guidance to them, bringing feedback from different parts of the leadership in the organization to help be in that space. But I think it was, you know, consistently from my vantage point, I was seeing different internal and external stakeholders kind of struggle to interact with the mission statement as it was in its current wording. And so how did we step into a new perspective there?

Adam Jeske 5:03

Describe for me what that struggle looked like. How did you see people needing something more or different?

Myal Greene 5:10

Yeah. Well, one thing that's unique to World Relief is we are engaged in global humanitarian work and in more than a dozen countries around the world. In those countries, a key part of our model is we work with churches to implement life-saving programs, resiliency-building programs, sustainable development programs. And we also are a refugee resettlement agency in the United States and work with immigrants and people of different backgrounds in terms of how they came to the United States. And so with that, it was it was always kind of in our old language hard to kind of reconcile and put an umbrella over those two groups of our work. And so I would see parts of the organization kind of struggling to say, well, that's not really what we do, and that's not how that works. Um, we could see places too when with our, you know, a very legalistic reading of our old mission statement, people saying, well, that's real hard to do that work in a Christian minority context where we feel very called to work with the limited churches that are there. But that may mean there's part of our work that we can't do through the church, and what does that look like? And how do we change that and address that? And so those were just, I think, a couple instances that were there. I think also just the language empower and the word empower was a word that was very in vogue in development language uh 15, 20 years ago. Then you kind of look at today, it kind of comes with a paternalistic perspective to it and that engagement. I think we wanted to kind of avoid language that was less favorable in that space. And that had come up a few times as well.

Adam Jeske 6:36

What was the length of this decision-making process from when you started first surfacing it with executive team members or board members to we are announcing to staff this new way of articulating our reason for existing?

Myal Greene 6:53

Oh, it was 12 to 18 months in total. And I think it was, you know, probably the first three months was just kind of sitting with this to say at the top end, is this something that we have the appetite for? Is this the direction that we're we're stepping into? What could that look like? But also just making sure that we entered that process with really open minds. And so being a Christian organization for us, it was very important to ensure that something as central to the organization as mission, we entered that from uh a prayer-filled discernment process. And we actually followed almost to a T the process that Ruth Haley Barton lays out in one of her books about discerning God's will together and what that is. And that became really a framework with which we wrestled with questions, we prepared our hearts as leadership for what that could look like and really made ourselves wanting to be submitted to God's will in that situation and what that would be. And so that was a big part of it. Beginning with prayer, beginning with comfort. I think explaining a lot of the internal why to people is really key. So it was you kind of posed the question of how long is it from when you started the work till you communicate with staff? We were really communicating with staff very early on that we were even considering this, thinking through it and where that is. And I think one thing that's very unique about us as an organization, I think other organizations in the nonprofit sector as well, is the reality that a lot of people are attracted to this work and make a lot of sacrificial service to the organization because they're committed to the mission of the organization, the nature of our programming. And you start saying we're going to start making adjustments to the mission, they begin to wonder, like, well, am I gonna still fit in this? Is this gonna be something I still want to be a part of? And so I think it is kind of really trying to understand that in any of these cases, we're talking about evolution, adjustment, of really expressing who we are today and what that looks like going forward, as opposed to saying we're changing the past and we're we're eliminating all of these core parts of who we are and what that looks like.

Adam Jeske 8:51

Interesting to have the Ruth Haley-Barton framework applied here. I have some familiarity with her thinking and process. Describe some more of the nuts and bolts logistics of communicating with staff about it, getting input. Yeah, like how did you make this decision kind of a little bit more like another level down of detail? How was this decision made?

Myal Greene 9:13

Yeah, so you know, ultimately, you know, a decision like this is the responsibility of the board to approve this, to set the guiding direction, what that looks like, um, and really input it. And but we know that, you know, our board, like most boards, meet on a very structured schedule. So we really laid out and aligned a lot of our timing and plans based upon the board schedule and use those as kind of gates in the decision-making process to reflect that and and really thought through what are we going to bring uh before the board at different stages for their input and and guidance. Uh, second is you know, one of the things that we really started with prayer. Um we began that process up front. Um, the board and the executive team were on a synced-up prayer schedule related to some of the elements that we were praying through. Um, and then we we built out um three sets of questions, which were really one was reflective, which is to say um,

Decision-Making Process

Myal Greene 10:10

what has defined who world relief is as an institution historically? What are the key things that are who we are and what does that look like? Two, you know, where are we in the world today and what are we doing that um is central to that? And we looked at kind of a lot of the um Jim Collins hedgehog principle, what drives the economic model, what we're good at, what we're passionate about. And then we also looked at the future and said, what are the needs in the world going to be as we go forward and see uh see that coming to bear? Getting all of that information together really is where we were able to kind of bring in that content, ideate around it, and really uh raise the surface elements that were tied to our mission and vision going forward.

Adam Jeske 10:51

Was there information that you wish you had in the process that was hard to access? This is a curious one because of the aspects of the decision that you named earlier, uh, where it's discernment and reflection, it's who are we, what is needed, how does the revenue model work? But surrounding it, was there data or information you wish you had had uh earlier or that you never had that you wish you had?

Myal Greene 11:14

I don't want to make this like a resounding no, but I but I would say that I think we were really wanted to use what we had available and we were committed to that. I think we also wanted to be led by the spirit in this process. And so I think this idea that we didn't have some data that we we needed in there. Now, not to say that your strategic planning shouldn't be spirit-led as well. You know, I I would really distinguish kind of strategy from envisioning in terms of the fact that like when we're we're kind of in that mission vision space, envisioning the future, what those opportunities are. I think we want that to be a little bit ostentatious in where we look to that. And I'm I'm a you know, huge believer in this perspective that God has got abilities far beyond the context of our imagination and and what that is. And so I think to the extent to which we're not constrained by, well, you know, this this donor source isn't gonna be available for that going forward, or this isn't a need that we see here, if if really we felt called to and led by God into that space, then funding constraints shouldn't have shouldn't be driving that. Now when we get into strategy, it's like, well, how are we gonna do that? How are we gonna live into that's given all the realities of the current moment? And then I think as we, you know, that it was a very consequential decision to make adjusting mission and vision, because then it affects how we do our strategy, it affects how we do hiring, it affects how we do capital allocation, all of that down the road. And we're still living into some of those changes a few years later. And so I think in a strategy process, I'm always looking for more information to make the best decision and what that looks like. I think in this space, I don't look back and say, I would have made a different decision if I had more knowledge of blank.

Adam Jeske 12:49

What were difficult or challenging aspects of this decision process?

Myal Greene 12:55

First and foremost, I think it is recognizing that for people who know the organization well, whether internally or externally, this comes with some degree of fear and saying, well, are we gonna be the same institution we are before we are before and what are the implications for that? And so how to live into it. And so I think part of that is ensuring that your staff know and understand the reasons that you're stepping into this process, and two, that they're willing to go along the journey. Some people were just terrified when we said we're gonna change the mission and vision. And and, you know, I'm an internal hired in my role that I've had for about five years as CEO, but I'd spent 14 years in World Relief before that and was a huge proponent when we went through the last mission statement change uh 15 years prior of really living into it and designing programs and understanding that. And I know a lot of the team members who really share that deep commitment. I also recognized when I became CEO, those parts and pockets of the organization that just the mission was not guiding their work. They didn't have a framework for how it applied day to day. It was not tangible or accessible to them in that space. And so I think it was managing the staff dynamics, what that looks through. And I think it's also external stakeholders, you know, to talk to some of your churches that are supporting your work or um donors that are that know you well to hear that, you know, and they're brought in on the mission, to hear that you're changing it. You know, you really have to come back to something deeper and and into that space from a place of trust. And I think we've navigated it well, but again, I think it came down to really knowing and understanding who we are and what our identity as an organization was and wanting to be true to that identity and that sense of calling, even amid kind of a different direction going forward and what we were going to prioritize to do.

Adam Jeske 14:46

You were making this decision uh a couple of years into your tenure as CEO. How did it feel?

Challenges in Decision-Making

Myal Greene 14:54

It felt like it was the right thing to do at the time. And I still think that it was one of the really meaningful changes that we've made in organization. I don't think I fully grasped while we were going through that decision-making process the level of follow-on change that would would come to bear. And so, you know, as a leader, I think you you know when something needs to change and you have to be committed to bring all the stakeholders on board to make that change, bring all the key participants into that space. But you know, you may or may not have the clear vision of all the things that come afterwards that need to be done. And I think this is just to say that, okay, so then we we rework our strategy, we begin stepping into changing some geographic priorities, we begin to make some consequential changes to the way that we raise money and what that looks like and where we invest as an organization, all of those things I think are really meaningful decisions. And I think what I appreciate about that being an outgrowth of mission vision change is that it's not just, oh, this is the thing that feels right in the moment. It really is anchored back on something bigger. And so I think that that's where, you know, I had had a core conviction that this was the right thing that we needed to get to. And I didn't get to that conviction alone. I don't get me wrong there. And I think our board was on board with that and and ready to move into that space. It really gave us the opportunity to make a series of better decisions for the future of the organization once we settled on that as the right way forward.

Adam Jeske 16:26

We've talked before about how the CEO role could be construed as making a handful of very important decisions each year. What are the areas in which you find those decisions frequently arising from? What are the sorts of decisions that make or break the year of a CEO in your experience?

Myal Greene 16:52

Well, yeah, and I'm I'm a firm believer in just what you said. You know, a good CEO makes a handful of consequential decisions a year. And that's really kind of defines where everything comes to bear. Uh a few of those things where that that really matters is capital allocation. And that's that sounds like a very marketplace term to use for the nonprofit leader. And I think this is something that I've really recognized is so crucial to the CEO role and success in nonprofit leadership is really recognizing which of your, you know, to the extent that you have capital available, cash reserves, things to that effect, where are you gonna deploy them that makes makes a difference? To the extent that you have unrestricted income, where are you gonna put that? Which needs that the organization interacts with? Are you gonna put that to bear? You know, so what how are you gonna balance growing the institution for the future versus the needs of your clients and your beneficiaries and what that looks like? And so that's just a crucial set of decisions that come that really I think have to be made very carefully. Second is um hiring of good people. And, you know, I think I have seen, you know, especially, I think it's true of any size organization, you know, who you hire affects that. But as an institution gets bigger and has a larger team, really making hiring decisions of leaders that are gonna bring in the right gifts and talents and skills, but also the ability to um drive culture and shape culture and and be an addition to culture. I think a lot of times people talk about culture fit, and I think that's like the worst thing to ever hire for, but it's things like culture addition should be the question that we're saying here. Who's gonna positively add to the culture that you're trying to shape and be an addition to and grow with that? Not someone who's just gonna come in and fit in with where things are. That's a little bit of side. So I think capital location hiring is really key. And then I think how how you you choose to use your time in terms of shaping discussions and what that is, and what discussions are you gonna put out there before your leadership, before the rest of the organization, before partners to make things move forward? But I think it comes down to, you know, if you're if you're making the right decisions with your resources and funding and that you are bringing the right people on board, then a lot of the other decisions take care of themselves.

Leadership Insights and Reflections

Adam Jeske 19:12

Are there consequential decisions you're carrying right now that you can share about? Not in detail.

Myal Greene 19:20

Well, I think we're always holding uh consequential things close to the chest. I don't I don't like to talk too much about the decision making process externally before some of those decisions have been made. But I would would come back to, you know, the the biggest things that I'm always thinking about does come down to kind of resource allocation, how am I solving for alignment, whether that's among my top team and those that I work with, as well as kind of the next couple levels down, and how to lean into that and prioritize that and give attention there. And then um I think the third area that that really relates to that as well just comes down to how are we putting the right message out to stakeholders and what that looks like. And just because the nature of the work that we do and with immigrants and refugees in this season, I think we're always trying to calibrate for the right balance of really what is the messaging where we can be truthful and consistent about what we think the word of God says in this season and this time, but also making sure that it is a message that invites people to join into the work and not a message of condemnation and a critique in that space and how to do that well.

Adam Jeske 20:28

What do you wish someone had told you before you took the CEO role?

Myal Greene 20:35

That is a great question. You know, I think there's always kind of the the um very obvious ones that you you kind of want to know like, well, what's the what's the secret thing in the drawer that that you opened up and you said, oh my goodness, I have to deal with this, right? And I think every every incoming leader in any role always has kind of that lingering issue that you just didn't know about and you you weren't aware of and and what that looked like. I think one of the things that I wish I had a greater visibility on and full conception understanding was is to what extent all eyes are on you internally. And so I think when they're when those tricky decisions are up to bear, or it's some HR or consequential type decision that affects policy for a large number of stakeholders or some of these unpopular decisions, the fact that no matter what you do, you're always gonna have some criticism, critique from parts of the organization that you don't even expect it from at times. And so I think that I didn't fully have, you know, a full appreciation for the level with which that that would would come to bear. And you know, I'm by nature, I think I'm conflict averse. And so I think that that could lead itself in in many situations into making decisions to kind of please people. And I think that that's one of the hard things here is this the dynamic of really making decisions that are the best for the institution as a whole and our obligation. In a leadership role like this, to do that,

Final Thoughts and Conclusion

Myal Greene 22:02

as well as care for and have compassion for and have the best interests of everybody in mind. And I think that that sometimes you find yourself at odds with those two things and you have to come back to what does it mean to put the needs of the enterprise, the needs of the whole first? And so I think there's just how that feels, I think is probably I think I knew intellectually that, yeah, everyone's gonna really be concerned about your decision. But I think the way that that would sit on me and rest in me and what that is, was something that was significant.

Adam Jeske 22:29

Okay, let's turn to a lightning round, some quick hit questions. Miles, what are a couple of books that have been really formative for your leadership in the CEO role?

Myal Greene 22:40

So I think the most formative book has been the book CEO Excellence, which was written by several uh McKinsey partners. And it's just a fantastic uh study of the CEO role. It's very market-focused and market-facing, but I think it's very applicable and very meaningful for the nonprofit leader, especially if you kind of read it with a little bit of a discerning lens there. So that's really valuable. I always love the content in a lot of the Patrick Luncioni work, but a really handy tool for me has been the Working Genius book, because I think more so than a lot of other personality tests, it's just so interactive and meaningful. And I think that's helped with our team, helped across the board. And then I think anything by Jim Collins on organizational leadership and some of that stuff. Some of it's a little bit older now, but I've really found the work to be timeless and consistently useful and meaningful.

Adam Jeske 23:30

Do you have any quotes that frequently come back to mind and you find yourself sharing with others or repeating to yourself? So I think it's quotes.

Myal Greene 23:39

I think I think the thing that I most quote and most come back to is the word of God and what that looks at in terms of its engagement and guidance for being a Christian organization and our shared faith and how that is a shared language with which we can really grow and understand and be shaped together. And so I think one thing is being in the nonprofit sector, being in the humanitarian sector, I think we constantly see need and challenge there. And I have regularly brought, and I think I mentioned it so many times that a colleague of mine framed it and sent it to me as a frame picture that I keep on my desk. Um, John 16, 33, which says, uh, Jesus says, in this, in this world you'll face many trials and tribulations, but take heart, I have overcome the world. And and really that idea that we're in a challenge space and a challenge time. And for me, it comes down to this idea and this commitment that with the challenge that we face, you know, Jesus is not saying, you know, take heart in the sense just sit on the couch and and wait for everything to play out and it'll all be okay. That that phrase is almost better translated as have courage. And I think that's the reminder here that we have courage to do the things that that are hard and that we don't want to do. And I think that's the distinction of courage is that you see see something, you're scared about it, but you step into it and do it. And so I think that that's been something that I've just kind of reminded myself of regularly. And I think when you remind yourself that thing regularly, then you remind other people of it as well. That in the midst of the hard things, we need to have courage and to step into that and lean into that.

Adam Jeske 25:10

What do you love about what you do?

Myal Greene 25:15

I love the people that I get to work with every day, whether that is the senior leaders that I probably spend the vast majority of my time with and just being around people who are gifted and talented and sharp but deeply motivated by their faith. Or it's it's the broader cross-section of staff that we work with who just share that same commitment to what they're doing and just incredible acumen and and commitment. Or is it the the clients and the program participants that we work with who um just consistently have showed me what true resilience means? And that when we adopt this perspective that everyone is created in the image of God, that bears with it both this commitment that everyone deserves dignity, but also as image bearers of God, everyone has the potential to overcome the most difficult and challenging of circumstances. And so to really lean into that and to see that come to fruition and to see the resiliency of humanity is really a big part of what I do. So it always comes out of the people and what what that it looks like on a daily basis.

Adam Jeske 26:26

Absolutely, Adam. If you know a nonprofit CEO who's carrying something significant, send them this episode. And if you want more of the patterns I'm seeing across hundreds of CEO conversations delivered weekly, this nonprofit CEO briefing is at nonprofit CEO.com. I'm Adam Jeski, the Nonprofit CEO Advisor. Thanks for what you're leading.