A few days ago I had the odd experience of mentoring one of my interns on leadership development. Odd because I'm so new to leadership development myself, but also because I felt I actually had things to teach. Much to my surprise, Lauren didn't immediately say, "Yeah, yeah, I already know that." Instead, she was nodding and taking notes. Also, I was reminded how much I learn when I teach - it forces me to articulate ideas that only exist nebulously in my mind.

Here are the basics of what I've learned so far, and what I told Lauren.

Involvement is a continuum. It doesn't help to think of infrequent volunteers, team members, and leaders as separate categories of participants. These types of participants belong on a continuum. Every volunteer should be seen as a potential team member, and team members can and should be encouraged to lead.

Leadership isn't a one-way activity. You can have lots of team members acting as leaders because leadership isn't a one-way activity that only occurs when someone leads her subordinates. Participants can lead laterally when they work on projects together, and help each other overcome obstacles. They can also lead upward - people higher in an organization should be open to the contributions of those below them. Developing leaders is less about grooming someone for a position of formal authority, and is more about developing abilities like critical thinking, communication, confidence, teamwork and a willingness to take risks.

Get participants working together. You'll have real trouble developing someone as a leader if you only assign him individual work. Even when tasks can be completed individually, get participants to work together on tasks so they can learn how to lead laterally. If tasks cannot be easily split up, ask participants to choose how to distribute a bundle of tasks, and ask them to talk to check up on each other's work. This will also help you recognize which participants take the initiative, and may be ready for more responsibility. Assigning work to groups also builds morale and team spirit, and takes a load off your shoulders, as you are no longer solely responsible for assigning tasks - you can ask a team to figure out the best way to accomplish something.

Assign responsibilities, not tasks. To engage a team member's passions, assign them broad responsibilities rather than narrow tasks. People want to feel they have accomplished something, and it's difficult to feel ownership of your work if you can't see how your work connects to everything else. Almost everyone has to do some tedious groundwork; a team member will be a lot more cheerful doing that work when she decides it's necessary to accomplish the goals she's responsible for than if you tell her to do that work. Sometimes you'll have to step in to remind a team member what sort of groundwork is necessary, but even in these cases, make sure to put the groundwork in the context of her overall responsibility.
When someone first gets involved, you should probably find engaging tasks to assign them, because they may not be interested in taking on responsibilities. But as people get more involved, you should give them the chance to take on responsibilities.

Gauge a participant's interest by suggesting they invite others. People who are really interested in the work they do will probably be enthusiastic about asking others to get involved, if you have ways new people can contribute without a large time commitment. If these opportunities exist and your team member isn't interested, it may be because he doesn't feel very engaged in what he's doing. Think about how you can engage him more. If you're already doing everything you should be doing, keep in mind that he probably won't be interested in getting any more involved than he already is.

Leadership development takes time. Leadership development not only takes time in the sense of needing weeks or months; it also takes real time from a leader's day. Don't shortchange your leadership development effort by assuming it will happen as a natural byproduct of management. Keep in very good contact with anyone you're developing as a leader, and anyone who is a potential leader. Don't drop the ball!

I'd love to hear your own suggestions - how do you develop leaders?

I think, talk, and write a lot about interesting new projects I want to work on here at the office, and new leadership practices I want to implement. But I always have a focus on the basic, core tasks we're supposed to be doing here.

We're a Senator's district office. Our core task is to respond to constituents questions and concerns, and assist them with problems when we're able. Despite my past and continued excitement about the ownership initiatives, the bulk of interns' time is spent responding to letters and resolving casework. The bulk of my time is spent similarly.

And this is as it should be. I foresee a day very soon in the future when we are completely caught up on all our responses and casework, and we can spend more time and energy on proactive engagement with constituents. But while we still have response letters to write, it would be remiss to work on other things instead. We can't serve our constituency well if people can't expect a timely call back or response letter.

Between yesterday and today I have responded to a large number of lists and individual letters, and all the metrics I track (to measure how well we're getting back to constituents) are heading in the right direction.

I think this is what happens when lots of companies and organizations become really successful - it isn't that they don't focus on the core tasks, or that they neglect the basics. It's that they figure out how to address those tasks effortlessly, and have resources to spare on exciting new ways to go beyond what everyone else is doing. I believe we can be a trailblazing district office, and I'm excited to be a part of this!

When I first started managing interns, both in Senator Steinberg's office and for the Davis Dollars Community Currency, I had to get over my reluctance to assign work to interns. I felt that I didn't really have authority over them, since they weren't being paid.

I finally wrapped my head around the fact that people volunteer or intern because they want a good experience, and a manager who's afraid to tell an intern what to do will ruin that experience.

That's not all - as a manager, you have to be ready to fire an intern who isn't working out. Just because they don't get paid doesn't mean you have to keep them on forever. Keeping someone who isn't helping your office wastes your time and lowers morale on the part of other interns.

Keep track of intern productivity
Any good manager should keep good track of his subordinates' productivity, but people managing interns sometimes don't think of themselves as "real" managers. Face it - you're a manager whether your subordinates are paid or not, and you need to do a good job.

Tracking productivity is less about knowing when to crack the whip and more about knowing when and how you can help your subordinates be productive. Studies have also shown that most people quickly lose interest in a job if they get the impression their manager doesn't care what they do, or whether they do a good job. Show that you are paying attention, have high standards, and believe your subordinates are capable of meeting those standards.

Is it your fault?
If an intern isn't productive, first make sure there isn't something you can do to help the intern be productive. As a manager who is still learning a lot about how to manage and lead people, I realize that if someone is ineffective under my supervision, there's probably something I can change to help them be more effective. Sometimes you're actually at fault (i.e. you have neglected your duties, and as a result the intern is ineffective). Other times, you're doing things well, but by giving the intern more support or resources, you can help them out.

In any case, look first to yourself, and seek some small change that can make the intern effective, before firing them. (See below for suggestions based on why the intern is ineffective.)

Lazy? Or Incompetent?
I've dealt with a number of interns who didn't quite seem to work out. Some are lazy or unreliable; others are simply incompetent. (The vast majority of the interns I've managed have ranged from good to excellent, though.) You need to be aware of whether you're facing a motivational problem, or a problem with the intern's abilities.

It's easiest to help an intern who just lacks a certain skill. Often a little training, a bit of mentoring from another intern, or a change in job duties will help this intern become more effective.

I always maintain a list of varied tasks, and set aside easier tasks for interns I know are less skilled, or who are still learning the ropes. I also talk to interns about their strengths. One of our interns who was a very poor writer turned out to be an excellent caseworker, and it would have been a huge mistake to fire her, or force her to spend hours trying to improve her writing.

It is possible to help an intern improve skills, but there is only a certain amount anyone can learn within a short period of time, and if an intern appears to be plateauing at a level of skill that isn't satisfactory, consider having them work on other tasks.

One of our interns, whom I'll call Clay, was incompetent at everything we assigned him. His writing quality was poor; he was uncertain and tremulous on the phone; he was inattentive to detail. If the intern truly isn't good enough at anything you need them to work on, or if they are so poor that they would be a liability to the office, you need to ask them to consider taking a job or internship elsewhere, where they can learn the skills necessary in this office. Your interview process should prevent these sorts of interns from getting into your office in the first place, but if one does get in, don't drag your feet. Holding off will not do the intern any justice, and it certainly won't help your office. Asking a well-intentioned intern to move on can be difficult, but you should do it as soon as you recognize they can't be of help. You can suggest that they may still be interested as a volunteer for events or projects where you need people for unskilled help, if you think they want to stay involved somehow. In Clay's case, it was a huge relief to our entire office when we finally asked him to move on. Your office should help interns learn new things, but you should get rid of an intern who isn't also helping your office.

Unmotivated interns
Dealing with unmotivated interns is an entirely different animal. As before, first make sure that the intern's attitude isn't a result of your own management habits. If they're disengaged because you never check up on them, that's your fault; firing them won't solve anything, and you'll continue to produce disengaged interns.

If you are showing attention to the intern's work, but this doesn't solve the problem, it's time to have The Talk. Speak to him in private, and explain that while you have a high opinion of his abilities, he hasn't been coming through with results. Ask him if there's anything you can do to help him be more effective.

Most interns are embarrassed to have The Talk. They know they aren't being productive, and they'll usually agree to shape up. Not all interns who promise this actually will, however, so it's important to extract a concrete commitment to be more productive. I spoke to one intern, who I'll call Alfred, after a couple of weeks of being unproductive. I was still a new manager, and this was the first intern I had had to confront. (I should have confronted him earlier.) He was extremely embarrassed, and had been so unproductive that I told him I'd assign him tasks along with the amount of time I expected they should each take. This way I would be able to notice immediately if Alfred was slacking off.

If an intern shapes up, you may be able to loosen any restrictions you put on him. If he doesn't, fire him immediately. Alfred didn't improve at all, so I spoke to him again and asked him to leave the office.

I feel like our office's intern program is on the verge of a growth spurt. We usually have between 4 and 16 interns, maxing out over the summer (see this graph). But I feel we're on the verge of being able to take on a lot more. I came to this realization yesterday after a series of interviews with prospective interns, and after talking to my district director, Susan, about our program. I left the office feeling elated and empowered.

Interns in our office do great work. In the past, they've enabled us to do a better job of things we already do: writing response letters, assisting constituents with casework, organizing district events. But with the start of the Ownership Initiatives and the leadership development program, our intern program will start to take on an entirely different character - it will allow us to do things we have never been able to do. We'll be able to proactively reach out to constituents (more than we already do); we'll partner with organizations to run health or safety or environmental programs; we'll put on educational workshops; we'll help neighborhoods organize. This is the vision of the intern program that motivates me.

I still need to grow as a manager and leader to make this vision a reality. I feel that I'm on my way down this path, but we also need to be thinking about what factors limit the number of interns we can handle. These are the factors I've been thinking about:

Space/resources: Our office is pretty big, but we do have a finite number of desks and computers. We'll have to figure out ways to fit more interns in here, or find ways for them to do work outside the office. We have a wireless network, so interns could work on laptops. We have a couple of other offices interns might fit into, but only after they've had significant experience in this office - this program works in part because I can help train interns. This brings me to the next limitation...

My ability to manage interns: I'm not quite at my capacity yet, but I may reach it yet, and I really need to ramp up the leadership development aspect of things if I really want this program to take off. I need experienced interns to be able to lead newer interns - I can't be the bottleneck through which everything must pass.

Our ability to find work for interns: As I see it, this is only an issue as long as we have interns working on our existing functions (letters, casework, events). As we develop the ownership initiatives program, more interns will just mean more projects we can take on. This will depend on successful leadership development, though.

The capacity of other staff members to help handle the interns: I do the bulk of the intern management, but other staff members play important roles. Karen reviews every letter after I review it. At the moment she feels well below her capacity, but as we have more interns, this may change. I can try to address this by having interns mentor other interns, and check each other's work before sending it to me, which will hopefully lead to a higher level of quality by the time it reaches Karen. This may decrease response times, though. Staff also do some managing when I'm away at class. This can be addressed somewhat through leadership development - interns can lead each other. It will also help when interns have more self-directed projects - at the moment, I assign them tasks, and once they've finished those tasks, there isn't much they can do. With self-directed projects like the ownership initiatives, they can come up with their own tasks.

I'm ready for our program to take off! I'll keep writing as things develop.

I've been slowly trying to get interns to work together more. I've been doing it both with my Davis Dollars interns and with my interns in Senator Steinberg's office, with different strategies.

I think it's important for a lot of reasons.

• It develops the interns' skills, initiative, and responsibility to be accountable to each other.
• Two heads are better than one - they can think of more ideas together than they'd be able to think of working alone on their projects.
• This allows me to tap into the creativity and intelligence of every intern. I can't think of everything. That fact is obvious, but assigning tasks unilaterally only makes sense if I believe I can think of everything we should do, and how we should do it. By allowing interns to talk about what to work on and how to accomplish it, they can come up with ideas I would not have thought of.
• It removes me as a bottleneck - when I need to assign tasks for everyone, it means interns are stalled if they need to wait to hear back from me. By delegating some authority to the intern teams, they can bypass me. This requires some watching, however, to make sure I approve of what they're working on.

There are different ways I'm having interns work together. My Davis Dollars interns work in small teams (2-3 people per team) to focus on different things. Two interns work on business outreach. Another is working on community outreach, which is broad enough that she helps other interns out as well as doing her own projects. Another intern works on our Gardenscaping project to create gardens for people in Davis, and she has some auxiliary interns helping her out, which I've helped recruit. Yet another intern helps other groups by working on design issues (creating publications, logos, etc.). Grouping them up this way has been tremendously successful in that it capitalizes on their good ideas and reduces pressure on me to think of everything.

In Senator Steinberg's office, I've been a bit less successful in thinking of ways to get interns to work together. They work together on their ownership initiatives, but I’ve had more trouble finding ways for them to work together on their core tasks of writing response letters and working on casework. Many of these core tasks are (to my mind) highly individual tasks that are difficult to split up.

I’ve been thinking of broader ways to get interns to work together, though. Working together doesn’t necessarily require splitting a task down the middle. Rather than assigning individual tasks to interns, I could allow them to create a division of labor by assigning a block of tasks to a group of interns, and allowing the interns to split the tasks between them. This would give them more initiative and make them partners in figuring out the best way to get through all the tasks. My current method commoditizes both the tasks and the interns by making piecemeal work out of something that could benefit from more creative thinking.

I did notice yesterday that two interns who were just starting out spontaneously started helping each other with tasks. Lucy, one of the interns, has already shown more initiative than average, so I wasn’t entirely surprised when she started helping Rochelle (who is a bit newer than Lucy). But I could also encourage teamwork by assigning each new intern to a more senior intern, and ask that senior intern to be responsible for guiding and mentoring the younger intern.

What are your thoughts? Do you have suggestions? How do you work with interns?

This post really isn't meant to be interesting; it's more of a time-stamp on my work for today. (I can't show graphs, because the data is not public.)

I and my intern team are responsible for all the response letters in our office, and I track and graph how we're doing in terms of open responses and lists.

Number of open contacts used to be my primary metric - how many people do we still need to respond to? I also track a few other things (like how many lists we still have to write letters for), but these are mostly proxy measures to show me extra dimensions of the task.

I recently added another measure - the average "age" of every currently-open contact. In other words, for all our open contacts, how long has each contact been open? I should know this.

But I soon realized this measure, while useful, is hardly enough on its own. If I close half our contacts, but I close the more recent half, the average age of open contacts will go up, which misrepresents the accomplishment of closing so many contacts. What I really want to know is the sum of all the open contacts, weighted by how long they've been open. I call these the "open-days" (just as a "man-hour" is one hour of time worked by one person). We should track "open-days", which will give me a composite measure of (1) how many contacts we have and (2) how long those contacts have been open.

So I started tracking this. But today, I did something better - I used the reports from our constituent records system to reconstruct the open-days measurement over the past year, by looking at how many currently-closed contacts were open at certain points in the past. It took a lot of hours of excel crunching, but it's all in place now! And it all confirms that we're at an all-time low in terms of open-days, open contacts, and everything else.

I also created a measurement of how long contacts from each month stay open before being closed. This is similar to the average age of our currently open contacts. Instead, though, it's the average age of all the contacts that came in a certain month. It gives an idea of whether we're improving or not in our response time. Unfortunately, recent months' data isn't yet reliable because some currently open contacts will get older before we close them, so the numbers for the last three months (which are quite low, which is good) will rise. I'll have to recalculate these numbers every so often to adjust them. But it looks like we're improving on this front as well!