Editorial Cartoon by Bob Englehart
/
PERSPECTIVE: Is Philanthropy Women’s Work?
/by Mary Cahalane The numbers
In Connecticut, the nonprofit sector employs almost 14% of our workforce. Connecticut nonprofits generate $33.4 billion in revenues annually. Individuals in Connecticut contribute $2.7 billion a year. The sector is important to our state.
Recently, I wrote about the struggles of balancing work and life – especially for those of us in the nonprofit world.
Stress is a real problem in the sector. And it’s getting in the way of our organizations’ missions.
The New York Times article that inspired my original post looked at the problem of stress in our lives.
The author suggested as a society, we’ve separated caregiving and work. Work we prioritize; caregiving is sidelined. And the need for both in our lives puts a great deal of pressure on the people who are caregivers – mainly women.
The impact on women in the nonprofit sector
Our approach to caregiving versus work is also holding women back. The need to juggle so many responsibilities at work and at home becomes impossible.
Women in Connecticut make up almost 70% of private nonprofit salaried workers. Yet median wages for women are $46,004 compared to $60,168 for men.
Nationally, it’s the same: nonprofit workers are also overwhelmingly women. Yet men fill most of the leadership roles – particularly in larger organizations.
The impact on nonprofit organizations
Dan Pallotta wrote a piece for The Daily Beast 6 years ago, Gender Trouble at Nonprofits. One paragraph really whacked me in the face.
Charity is not allowed to use the same tools as business because society subconsciously regards it as female, and discriminates against it the same way it has historically discriminated against women. Charity is subservient. The for-profit sector heads to the office every day to do the real business of the world, while charity stays at home and dabbles in idealism and sentiment. Even the governing structure of charity is patriarchal; business people direct nonprofit staff—seven in 10 of whom are women—from the perches of their board seats.
Wow.
We have a leadership problem
Here’s the irony of it all, though. When you survey people about the most important leadership qualities, they’re the ones most associated with women.
Diversity is needed to build a strong organization. We applaud it in theory, but struggle with it in practice. That’s not lip service, that’s fact. Surveys point to a need for the qualities women score more highly on. These traits include “expressive”, “plans for the future”, “reasonable”, “loyal”, “flexible” and “patient”.
Why the disconnect? An article in the Harvard Business Review talks about second generation bias – unconscious, unintentional, but still present.
It’s a trap for women: men who score high on likeability are also seen as more competent leaders. For men, the two leadership traits are complementary. Women are seen as less competent if they’re more likable.
This infographic from TCC Group makes the problem of gender diversity in our sector quite clear.
Double whammy?
Nonprofit organizations must work twice as hard to care for the needs of the world. And as Pallotta says, they’re denied many of the tools used in the for-profit world. Somehow, we’re supposed to innovate without investment. We’re supposed to care for people while not caring for our employees.
Nonprofit work is seen as less important – even though it’s desperately needed. (And not likely to be done by the private sector.)
That’s bad enough. But then within our sector, women are still fighting for a place at the grown-ups’ table.
So what can we do?
We can mentor. We can push for flexibility. We can be conscious of bias when we hire or promote. We can model kinder, gentler organizations.
But what’s needed to create real change is leadership.
We need leaders with those qualities usually identified with women.
We need the loudest voices to be those who value empathy, vulnerability, loyalty, flexibility and patience.
This isn’t only about what’s just.
It’s about what’s best for the sector and for the world. It’s about effectiveness.
We’re killing ourselves to save the world.
Doesn’t that mean we’re doing it wrong?
___________________________________________
Mary Cahalane is a nonprofit fundraising consultant, and author of the blog Hands-On Fundraising. She has more than 30 years of experience with community-based organizations, major regional theaters and a variety of nonprofit organizations in Connecticut and beyond.
PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.
PERSPECTIVE: Gun Reforms vs. Gun Servants
/by Dick Polman Why do Republicans nauseatingly refuse to address America's gun murder epidemic? Why are they so determined to sustain our well-earned reputation as the most violent nation in the civilized western world? Why are they jerking their knees in reflexive opposition to President Obama's modest attempts to defend our right to remain alive?
Of course we know why. It's Obama hatred and gun lobby love.
You would think, judging by their tiresomely predictable reactions, that Obama is poised to dispatch an army of flying monkeys to swoop into American homes and spirit away the 270,000,000 guns that we apparently hold dear.
But this fever swamp rhetoric is flatly contradicted by reality. Obama is basically tweaking existing gun laws to make them work better. Which is exactly what Republicans have been urging all along.
For instance, the federal background check system is notoriously understaffed and under-financed. Under federal law, if the FBI can't complete a check within three days, the buyer gets his gun without the check having been completed. That's what happened last year in Charleston, South Carolina. Remember the white racist terrorist who killed nine people at the historic black church? He got his gun because the understaffed feds didn't obtain his criminal record within the mandated three days.
So Obama is beefing up the background-check system - directing more money and manpower to weed out the criminals and mentally ill. Plus, he's earmarking an extra $500 million to mental-health services, to better help those who have woes between their ears.
Yet the Republicans don't like any of that.
Obama also took action to close loopholes in existing laws - most notably, the one that allows people to buy guns, without any background screening, from private sellers and online sellers. Isn't it logical to tweak existing laws so that everybody gets screened prior to buying bang-bangs? The American public certainly thinks so; according to the latest 
Quinnipiac poll, 89 percent support background checks for private and online buyers.
The Republicans don't want any of that, either.
Requiring shippers to report stolen guns - that makes sense, too. Investing in advanced technology so that kids can't accidentally pull gun triggers - that makes sense, too. And yet, not a single Republican has spoken up to say, hey, that's a good idea.
Instead, all we got was the usual pap, plus a lot of whining about Obama's alleged kingly behavior. They're basically complaining that Obama is doing end-runs around the Republican Congress, somehow forgetting that the Republican Congress is invested in doing the gun lobby's business by doing nothing. Just last month, in fact, it squashed a bill designed to beef up background checks.
Kathleen Parker - the center-right political columnist, no friend of Obama's - says it well on Wednesday: "In fairness to the gun lobby, which may not deserve such charity, one can understand reservations about limiting access to guns. What is less easily understood is the refusal of Republicans to take the reins of any given issue and do something constructive rather than invariably waiting to be forced into the ignoble position of 'no.' It is one thing to be in the pocket of the National Rifle Association. It is another to do nothing and then assume a superior posture of purposeful neglect, as though do-nothingness were a policy and smug intransigence a philosophy."
Can Obama's executive actions substantially curb our annual gun murder epidemic? No way. We have too many guns in circulation for that to happen. He freely acknowledged that on Tuesday, saying, "We know we can't stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence."
There it is - the desire to save at least a few of the lives that would otherwise be lost. Doing something to dent the death toll sure beats thoughts 'n' prayers.
Or to paraphrase the Talmud, "He who saves a single life, saves the world entire."
__________________________________________
Dick Polman is a former columnist at The Hartford Courant and was founding editor of The Hartford Advocate. He is the national political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia and a "Writer in Residence" at the University of Pennsylvania. Email him at dickpolman7@gmail.com. Copyright 2016 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.
PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.
PERSPECTIVE: Consider the Meaning of Language Before You Use It – Or Prepare to Lose
/by Paul Steinmetz A university is a wonderful place to work if you like the energy of young people, smart coworkers who are trained to challenge the status quo, and the clanging excitement that the combination creates. You will also notice that the inhabitants of universities and colleges sometimes get themselves knotted up in problems that others don’t face, and they often involve the use of language.
One reason for these issues is that there are a lot of constituencies of higher education, and trying to please them all might be impossible.
Complicating the situation, colleges and universities are often at the forefront of trends in lifestyle and other thinking, which means the words we use to describe these new things are not well defined or accepted. It’s very easy to be well-meaning and yet upset someone.
Finally, you have professors who are very definite in their opinions and students who are enthusiastic in their challenge of such opinions.
The occasional result: chaos, misunderstanding and anger.
Here are a few examples:
At the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, an administrative office published a guide of pronouns that transgender people might prefer. The list included ze and hir or zir instead of he/she and her or him. Xe and xem would take the place of they and them.
The education trade journal Inside Higher Ed reported that the guide “created a political uproar in the state.” The university president ordered the guide removed from the UT website, saying, “The social issues and practices raised by the Office for Diversity and Inclusion are appropriate ones for discussion on a university campus. However, it was not appropriate to do so in a manner that suggests it is the expectation that all on campus embrace these practices.”
At Washington State University, a professor wrote a syllabus that banned the use of certain words in class and promised punishment to any students who used the words.
From the syllabus:
“Use of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist or generally offensive language in class or submission of such material will not be tolerated. (This includes ‘The Man,’ ‘Colored People,’ ‘Illegals/Illegal Aliens,’ ‘Tranny’ and so on — or referring to women/men as females or males.)”
The university administration acknowledged that the professor was attempting to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for everyone. But it pointed out that the syllabus probably violates the First Amendment and ordered all professors “to ensure that students’ right to freedom of expression is protected along with a safe and productive learning environment.”
Finally, you might think that the definition of genocide is clear-cut, but it’s not. Sacramento State University in California is the most recent institution to teach us this.
A sophomore there says her professor threatened to kick her out of class after she allegedly challenged his statement that the term “genocide” wasn’t appropriate for U.S. settler and government actions against American Indians.
Again according to a report in Inside Higher Ed, the professor allegedly said that genocide implies intention and, in his opinion, most native people were killed by European diseases.
The student said she was “enraged” by that statement and a couple of days later she debated the professor in class and began reading out loud the United Nations’ 1948 definition of genocide. The professor asked her to stop, inviting her to talk to him after class rather than “hijack” his lesson. Social media and bloggers reported on the confrontation and the university is investigating exactly what happened in the classroom. (The Inside Higher Ed article offers examples of the many variables considered in deciding what is and what isn’t considered genocide.)
Although none of these situations occurred at the university where I work, I pay attention to them because it would be my task, along with many others, to advise on a response to such an uproar should it happen here.
As a professional writer and public relations practitioner, I often say that anticipating problems and addressing possible issues is usually better for an organization, and individuals, than moving ahead without thinking about the consequences of words. Language is sometimes volatile and has the potential to convey things not intended if mishandled. My other advice is that, when about to engage in potentially controversial activity, you should always let the boss know what you are doing. He/she/ze might later backtrack, but at least you have communicated thoughtfully and clearly. And that is what is important.
________________________________________________
Paul Steinmetz is director of Public Affairs & Community Relations at Western Connecticut State University. As the founder of Writing Associates, he consults on writing issues for businesses and individuals. If you want to discuss a writing issue, contact him at paul@paulsteinmetz.com.
PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers from across the state appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.
PERSPECTIVE: Fiduciary Duty - A Pledge Board Members Need to Uphold
/by Lisa Wills The whole of an organization is only as strong as the composition of its board.
Many individuals become nonprofit board members because of their passion for the entity’s mission. Once the organization determines the member is a fit, it’s assumed that the pledge to honor and uphold the fiduciary duties will naturally follow.
The benefits of sitting on a board are innumerable. However, board members who use their position for surreptitious gains and lose sight of their responsibility to uphold the organization’s best interests, or are not fully paying attention, may wind up in one of these scenarios.
Recently, a jury verdict against the board of directors of Lemington Home for the Aged, a nonprofit nursing home, was upheld by the U.S Circuit Court of Appeals. The directors were found personally liable for breach of their duty of care for failure to remove the CFO of the nursing home after learning of his mismanagement of the entity.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has called for an investigation of the board members of The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art over alleged mismanagement of the higher education institution’s endowment and physical assets. Their actions caused the school to charge undergraduates tuition for the first time in its history.
The lack of transparency by Sweet Briar College’s board of trustees led to legal action after the board failed to communicate to its constituents the accuracy of their financial situation, yet in turn, voted to abruptly close the institution. After a long legal battle, a settlement was reached in June 2015 to keep the institution open, with several conditions, one being the resignation of the entire board of trustees.
These are just a few of the national headlines that exhort us to question how serious some nonprofit board members take their fiduciary responsibilities. These responsibilities are known as the duties of care, loyalty and obedience.
Board members are expected to exercise reasonable care when making decisions on behalf of the entity in which they serve. In instances where they do not exercise such care, board members may be held personally liable.
Increased scrutiny over the activities and decisions of nonprofit boards may result in members and prospective members evaluating if their involvement is worth the risk. There are some key practices that board members need to uphold as assurance that they are exercising fiduciary responsibilities:
- Know the entity – Read and understand the articles of incorporation and bylaws, and ensure that documents are updated and amended as appropriate. Be aware of pending and threatened legal claims against the entity.
- Be informed of strategic initiatives – Read the organization-wide long-term, strategic plan. Understand the financial and economic challenges facing the entity and the industry, as a whole.
- Stay informed of financial activities – Understand significant components of the annual budget, encourage regular reporting of financial information, review the annual audit report and management recommendations with the external auditors.
- Understand conflict of interest policy – Be aware of potential conflicts of personal and professional conflicts of interest between the board member, a family member or an employee and the nonprofit entity. Disclose conflicts of interest and abstain from board votes where appropriate.
- Understand the nonprofit entity’s indemnification policies – Ensure that the entity’s policies provide for indemnification of its board members, and that there is a directors’ and officers’ liability policy in place to cover claims arising from board service.
- Prepare for and attend board meetings – Review board minutes and financial statements in advance of meetings, which will allow you to be an active participant and ask questions and understand the issues. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves.
- Always use good judgement - Remember that the fiduciary responsibility requires board members to make decisions that are both prudent and informed.
Board members receive great satisfaction from their involvement and should feel that, in exercising due care, they have acted in the best interest of the nonprofit in furthering the mission and making a difference.
___________________________
Lisa Wills is an audit director with Whittlesey & Hadley, P.C. She specializes in audits of nonprofit organizations.
PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers from across the state appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.
PERSPECTIVE: Here Today and Gone by January, 2030
/by Peter Eder In our unending and ever accelerating pace of societal change, it might be productive to reflect on what will not be here in fifteen short years. Looking into our crystal balls might just help us prepare to cope with changing aspects of our society. Here are some observations.
“Full time employees” will be as extinct as “telephone switchboard operators”, and the Social Contract, no longer applying to employee / employer relationships, will only be found in the writings of Rousseau.
United States currency will have value only to Numismatists, as a global currency replacing dollars, yuans, reals and rupees will be in increasingly electronic usage. And that currency will be paperless and coinless. In a visit to China last year, it was somewhat surprising to discover that in Beijing, coins are no longer used. All expenses are rounded up or down to the nearest paper yuan.
Un-earmarked charitable donations will have been replaced by the omnipresent cause-related giving permeated as a marketing and public relations strategy, and as the wealthy lay claim to their own branded intent to stamp 
out specific illnesses or perceived social injustices.
Genders will be non-existent in civil law, in fashion, fragrance ... and everyday life. Labels like Mr., Mrs., and Ms. are already being replaced by Mx.
Individual privacy will have disappeared caused by individual indifference, data clouds, drones, face recognition and surveillance-everywhere cameras, and corporate and governmental manipulations of regulations.
Public place quiet will have also disappeared, thanks to ubiquitous and intrusive electronic gadgets, visual and audio advertising everywhere, and ego driven social manners.
A balkanized internet will have replaced the World Wide Web, as the war over ownership and manipulation of all forms of communications becomes an attractive replacement, or at least a supplement to, “conventional” warfare.
Brick and mortar general public libraries will have gone the way of most houses of worship, as we move into the Paper-less Books and Godless Society. The Divine Being worship vacuum will be partially filled by zealots preaching over electronic outlets. A substantial number of church structures will be converted into museums, or studio sets for those wishing “traditional” marriage photos.
What is in your crystal ball?
____________________________________
Peter F. Eder is a retired marketing executive, AARP Connecticut community volunteer and a founding board member of At Home In Darien, his community aging-in-place organization. Throughout his career, he has been involved with local and national organizations within the communications arena and in responding to acute needs of people in our communities.
PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers from across the state appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.
PERSPECTIVE l A Lesson in Finding - and Maintaining - Your Passion
/by Paul Steinmetz After two years of planning, Cynthia Newlin O’Connor’s career as an activist hit the peak. She stood in Times Square and watched a ton of ivory that had been smuggled into the U.S. go through a crusher.
These ivory crushes, as they’re called, are held to demonstrate to a world audience, including poachers and smugglers, that there will be no profit in killing elephants for their tusks.
O’Connor is the executive director of Elephants Matter, a nonprofit concerned with stopping the slaughter of elephants for the ivory trade.
A week after her daughter graduated from college, O’Connor suggested, “Let’s go to California and clean up those sea birds that were caught in the oil spill at Santa Barbara.”
Her daughter replied, “You had me until you mentioned cleaning the sea birds, mom.”
O’Connor is quick-talking and petite but not demure – “I try to use Cynthia, not Cindy, but I can’t pull it off.” She gave herself about two weeks to recoup from the crush before starting her current venture. She’s gathering signatures on a petition to Pope Francis that asks him to join the elephant crusade and to sponsor his own crush of Vatican ivory.
I’m writing about O’Connor because she demonstrates the passion that all single-minded people have in some supply. Sure, she has more than the rest of us, but writers and entrepreneurs get excited about things, too. That’s why they take off on quests to start their own businesses or are certain in their belief that they can persuade others with a unique collection of words and sentences. It seems a little nutty to everyone else, but most of us with the calling feel we have little choice: We must pursue our belief in ourselves and our abilities.
Sometimes it works out. O’Connor became an elephant crusader as a youngster. She was a child model doing a photo shoot at a zoo near Chicago. The young elephant was aggressive and sent her flying with a swat of its trunk. O’Connor asked her mother why the elephant would do that and mom replied, “He’s surely not a happy baby. He should be with his mother back in Africa where he belongs!”
As O’Connor says, “I was imprinted.”
She traveled to Africa in 1988 and visited the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust orphanage in Nairobi. “On that day I promised myself and the elephants that I would do whatever it took to save them.”
O’Connor has worked as a photographer and in sales for radio. She created Elephants Matter and in 2013 became a full-time crusader, testifying in January 2014 before the New York State Assembly in support of a bill condemning the illegal trade in ivory. The bill was signed into law on Aug. 12, which is World Elephant Day. At the hearing, O’Connor committed to the creation of an ivory crush in Manhattan. She campaigned, researched, and enlisted the support of state Sen. Brad Hoylman, whose district includes Times Square, and the crush happened on June 19.
Now she is circulating her petition.
“I strongly believe that when the Pope speaks out about this issue it will be the final word needed,” O’Connor says. “The world embraces him, and he embraces the world. Above any political agenda, financial gain or personal aggrandizement, when the pope speaks, the world listens.”
Whether the pope and the world do listen, you can count on one thing. O’Connor is not going to stop.
Paul Steinmetz, a former editor of the Danbury News-Times, is the director of Community Relations and Public Affairs for Western Connecticut State University and the principal of Writing Associates, providing publicity and writing services for businesses, institutions and individuals.
_________________________________________________________
CT by the Numbers publishes opinion articles of 600 words or less. Submissions should be emailed to info@ctbythenumbers.info. Perspectives are published at the discretion of CT by the Numbers.
PERSPECTIVE l Major Accounting Changes Proposed by FASB for Nonprofits
/by Katrina Olson The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) announced in April 2015 proposed changes to reporting for nonprofit organizations nationwide and will impact the approximately 13,340 nonprofits currently registered with the State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection. The proposal represents the first major overhaul of nonprofit reporting requirements in more than two decades.
FASB, formed in 1973, serves as the standard-setting body that establishes accounting rules governing the preparation of financial reports by nongovernmental entities, including nonprofit organizations.
Changes are expected to be widespread, affecting all areas of the financial statements. Here are a few of the significant changes:
Net assets
With multiple proposed changes on the table, the greatest impact calls for elimination of the three classes of net assets, the reserves of a nonprofit organization—unrestricted, temporarily restricted, and permanently restricted. If passed, nonprofits would have to report two classes of net assets, “net assets with donor restrictions” and “net assets without donor restrictions”.
The current distinction between permanent restrictions and temporary restrictions has become blurred in recent years due to changes in state laws. Many states allow nonprofits to spend from permanently restricted endowment funds under certain circumstances.
FASB hopes simplifying the number of classes of net assets will improve understandability and reduce complexity.
Income statement
Another significant change would impact the statement of activities, which presents a nonprofit’s income and expenses. The proposed rule would require all nonprofits to report net income or loss from operating activities separate from non-operating activities. This would more clearly show the income and costs directly related to accomplishing the mission of the organization.
Non-operating activities, such as investment earnings or losses, can distort the operating bottom line. This makes it difficult for an interested party to distinguish the financial performance directly related to the nonprofit’s mission.
Cash flows
A change likely to stir the most controversy amongst nonprofit accountants is the proposed overhaul of the statement of cash flows, which identifies the organization’s sources and uses of cash. The cash flow statement is often cited as the most misunderstood statement.
Key stakeholders frequently gloss over the statement of cash flows, considering it unreadable. The FASB proposed change would present the statement using the direct method, requiring the reporting of cash receipts from key revenue sources as well as disbursements to suppliers versus to employees for wages. It’s anticipated that this change would provide a clearer presentation of cash in and out related to operations.
Proponents argue the change to the cash flow statement would provide more useful information to key stakeholders, although some nonprofit advocates take issue with any change that would cause even greater disparity between reporting requirements of nonprofit organizations versus for-profit businesses.
What’s the bottom line? Truth be told, these reporting changes will require an investment of time for nonprofits and their accountants to implement. Whenever there is any change to accounting rules, there are both benefits and costs.
FASB’s proposal comes at a time when stakeholders have increasingly complained that improvements are needed to the financial statement presentation for nonprofits to provide better information for decision-makers regarding a nonprofit’s financial performance, service efforts, need for external financing, and stewardship of donor funds.
The proposal has been years in the making, dating back to late 2009 with the formation of the Not-for-Profit Advisory Committee (NAC) – a group formed to work with FASB to focus on financial reporting issues affecting the nonprofit sector.
A handful of nonprofit accounting rule changes have passed in the years since the formation of the NAC – the current proposal represents the most sweeping modification to nonprofit reporting requirements, thus far.
Nonprofits and accountants may view these changes as extra work in the short-term, however we can only hope nonprofits will reap the anticipated benefits of providing better information to decision-makers.
The FASB proposed changes are expected to be effective for 2017. In the meantime, FASB invites individuals and organizations to weigh in on the proposed changes before August 20, 2015. To comment, visit the FASB website at www.fasb.org and click on Exposure Documents Open for Comment, or email director@fasb.org.
You might notice a comment from me as well!
Katrina Olson is an audit manager with Whittlesey & Hadley, P.C. She specializes in audits of nonprofit organizations. This article first appeared in Hartford Business Journal.
_________________________________________________________
CT by the Numbers publishes opinion articles of 600 words or less. Submissions should be emailed to info@ctbythenumbers.info. Perspectives are published at the discretion of CT by the Numbers.
PERSPECTIVE l Developing the Next Generation of Social Change Leaders
/by Nicole Lindsay and Meghan Lowney
We have the great privilege of supporting the development of rising social change leaders in Connecticut. Through our leadership programs and in conversations with individual leaders over the years, we've listened and learned. It's clear that rising leaders are passionate about social change and want to have greater impact. This desire is similar to what we hear from executive directors and other senior nonprofit leaders who grapple with serving constituents and building sustainable organizations despite the challenges of limited resources and the ever-growing complexity of social issues. We know that the people on our teams are mission-critical. And we know that they need professional development and support to get the job done well.
But knowing and doing are two different things. Even though talent is an organization’s most important asset, nonprofits routinely fail to invest in human capital development. The communities we care about so much depend on our effectiveness, yet we don’t implement and fund strategies that enable staff retention, growth and achievement.
All too often, our day-to-day organizational realities trump our desire for long-term organizational and social impact. A tension between the immediate and important exists because, despite our efforts, most of our constituents are underserved. As responsible stewards of funding and support, we respond by investing as much as possible to immediately and directly meet the needs of our constituents. Consequently, we make too little room in our budgets for leadership development. Organizational cultures neglect leadership practice. This shortsighted—albeit honorable— approach limits leadership development and diminishes the social sector’s impact. Connecticut’s social impact potential necessitates more investment now in the people who will lead the sector in the future. We will go farther, faster, if we refocus our attention to building leaders.
So, how might individual organizations expand investment in rising leaders and get better results? We have a few low-cost, as well as more resource-intensive, strategies to suggest. But first, it’s important to share a key assumption, grounded both in research and our own experiences: leaders are made, not born. They are "made" through deliberate practice including their own efforts to reflect, proactively seek and use feedback and take on stretch opportunities. They need support for this work including the guidance, feedback and investment of more seasoned leaders. Everyone can learn to lead.
Suggested next steps for advancing your leadership development efforts:
- Envision Your Next Generation Leadership Team—Clarify your vision of the team that your organization will need for future success. A longer-term view will help cultivate a leadership development mindset. Identify what your rising leaders will need to know and do in the future and determine what strategies would best support their development.
- Be Deliberate about Diversity— As we look to the future, we know that nonprofit organizations must achieve more ethnic, racial, socio-economic and experiential diversity. Constituents and other stakeholders, including rising leaders, expect their organizations to be actively working to increase diversity and very much want to be a part of helping achieve that outcome. Proactively work to discover untapped talent and potential both internally and externally.
- Set Goals and Create a Plan That Works—Whether an organization’s budget is big or small, leadership development must be prioritized to get results. Determine your organizational goals and measurable outcomes that you anticipate. Engage leaders at every level for input. Ensure that all stakeholders understand the plan and your commitment to leadership development. Craft a plan and a process to check in on progress and evaluate your growing bench of talent.
- Establish a Realistic Budget for Leadership Development—Over time, increase investment in growth and learning. While there are lower-cost ways to support leader development (leveraging existing resources and processes) you will likely find that you should fund external programs and coaching for specific support and outcomes.
- Invest in Targeted Individual Leadership Development—Every team member, and certainly your high-potential rising leaders, ought to have an individual leadership development plan that focuses on stretch assignments and areas for growth. Younger leaders want and need feedback. They also want to know how their efforts are helping the organization meet its goals. Encourage your rising leaders to grow their support networks in order to build sustainable relationships inside and outside of the organization. Create a culture in which leaders are expected to ask for feedback, practice and reflect on their leadership efforts, and yes, sometimes fail and try again.
- Leverage Your Nonprofit’s Most Important Leadership Development Asset—The senior nonprofit team is your most important leadership development asset: not just because they are driving the organization’s critical work, but because rising leaders crave their guidance, insight and direction. Invest time, even if it’s over lunch periodically, to meet with, mentor and coach rising social sector leaders.
If developing the next generation of social change leaders was easy, every nonprofit would already be doing it. It’s tough to change our organizational cultures in order to prioritize leadership development. But, as they say, the change starts with us.
Nicole Lindsay, JD, MBA is the Director of Leadership Development at The ZOOM Foundation and author of “The MBA Slingshot for Women: Using Business School to Catapult Your Career” (Praeger 2014). Meghan Lowney, MSW is the Executive Director at The ZOOM Foundation. Find out more about their leadership development programs at www.ldrct.org and www.zoomfoundation.org. This article first appeared in Nonprofit Advantage, a publication of the Connecticut Association of Nonprofits.
_________________________________________________________
CT by the Numbers publishes opinion articles of 600 words or less. Submissions should be emailed to info@ctbythenumbers.info. Perspectives are published at the discretion of CT by the Numbers.
