When Not To Lead

To be a successful blogger we are told, "Be authoritative! Demonstrate your expertise!" etc. But the truth is, all any of us can ever do is to write from our limited experience, share the lessons we have learned, and hope it helps somebody in their own journey. In the end, we are all in a constant process of learning. Even the so-called experts and teachers - if they're good at what they do - are still learning.

This is generally a blog about nonprofit leadership (including fundraising and administration) written by a middle-aged (58), well educated (Master's degree), white (by most standards, but not to a few), cis male (although that never stopped any bullying by those who presumed I wasn't cis).

In relation to today's headlines, and the continued protests, counter-protests, and eruptions of violence in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by four Minneapolis police officers, this is not the time for my leadership, or for my voice to be the loudest one in the room. It is time for me and (in my opinion) people like me, to be an ally.

But, in my three decades of nonprofit service, what I've learned about being a leader and what I've learned about being an ally both rely on the same skill. That skill is knowing when to close my mouth and just listen.

Yes, I get the irony. I'm taking the time to talk about why I should shut up. You're under no obligation to read further.

Lao Tzu said that, "A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves."

My experience in life has been one of probably 98% privilege. I've had a few incidents with anti-Semites (a lost job, a bloody nose or two), but these are rare. In school days, long ago, my preference for longer hair and lack of skill or interest in sports led to a certain amount of anti-gay bullying (despite my not being gay).

But overall, my life has been one of middle-class, white privilege. I've driven away from traffic stops with only a warning and never thought "this is how I die" when I was pulled over. When shop owners have kept an extra close eye on me I've had the luxury of thinking "what a paranoid ass" instead of "what a racist."

So listening has done me well when serving organizations working with folks who don't share my experience. Listening first, and speaking later, has helped me in building mutual trust and understanding. Listening first, and speaking later, has helped me to recognize leaders, and nurture their skills, where others may have only seen need.

Listening first, and speaking later, has taught me that the most important question I can ask as a leader is, "How may I support you?"

Which brings us to this week. And to be a good ally, the most important thing I can do - the only thing I can do - is to ask the same thing, "How may I support you?"

I've taken answers from many sources, one of them being the Movement for Black Lives, and their Week of Action. Each day has a demand, and a list of suggested actions you can take in support of it. The actions are divided into "Safe," "Medium," and "High Risk."

Today (Thursday) the demand is Community Control. Communities need to control the laws, institutions, and policies that are meant to serve them, but all too often fail (and fail by design). That includes local schools, public budgets (budgets are political documents), and the police. One of my chosen "safe" actions is to write a blog about this (other actions I've chosen are not so safe).

For several years there was progress in many cities regarding community policing. Getting cops to actually live in the areas where they worked. Training them to be present in support of community, not just to show up and pull people out of the community. Policing as a preventive activity, not a strictly punitive one. This was good, but rarely truly brought policing to the full demand of Community Control.

Partly, because the counter-force to that effort has been stronger. There is a nationwide trend toward militarization of the police. Federal programs have sold surplus military equipment to local departments, turning police into an invading force, far beyond what is needed to "protect and to serve."

According to the ACLU, "Sending a heavily armed team of officers to perform 'normal' police work can dangerously escalate situations that need never have involved violence." And police have received training in the use of that equipment that goes contrary to the training they'd previously had in community policing.

Sadly, one of the factors making things worse are the police unions. Bob Kroll, head of Minneapolis's police union criticizes the community policing approach like this, "Certainly cops, it's not in their nature. So you're training them to back away. And it's just not a natural."

You know what else isn't "natural"? It's not natural for a 200lb man to kneel on another man's neck for over eight minutes and expect him to live, or for his three colleagues to stand by and watch.

So, back to theme of this blog. What can we, as nonprofit leaders, do today? We can truly listen to those who we claim to serve. We can elevate their voices where and when we can. We can add our voices as needed (and never loud enough to cover theirs). We can admit our privilege (be it white, Christian, CIS, male, or whatever the source or sources).

But whatever else, what we can do, what we should do, what we must do, is to take action.

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented... Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe." - Elie Wiesel

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Irwin B. Goldstein, 1929-2012

Dear friends, today's blog is not about nonprofit management, but, in a way, it is about leadership. My first and most important mentor in leadership, my father, passed away, surrounded by family, on Sunday, December 9, 2012.

Irwin B. Goldstein was born in January, 1929, in Boston, Massachusetts. After graduating from high school, he joined the Army, then went on to Bentley College on the G.I. bill where he earned a certificate in accounting. In 1950 he got his first job in the record business, never expecting it would be his life's work. Forty-three years later, in 1993, he retired as a Senior Vice President of Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Distributing Corp.

The music business also introduced Irwin to the love of his life. He first saw Judi, then working for a classical music radio station, at a Boston Hi-Fi show in late 1954. They were engaged two weeks after their first date and married six months later. They have three sons (I am the youngest).

Irwin and Judi, were also dedicated volunteers, working to raise money for cancer research and treatment through the Music Industry Chapter for the City of Hope. For many years of that, he served as the treasurer of their chapter.

He is survived, missed, and loved by his wife of 57 years, Judith, sons Stephen, D. Miles, and Kenneth, daughters in law-in-law Jennifer, Michelle, and Leslie, six grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, his younger brother and sister, nieces, nephews, cousins, and countless more who all wished that he was their Dad.

Interim Executives Are Part Of Succession Planning

Yesterday, on Alan Harrison's Voice of Reason blog, he posted a great article about the pitfalls of bad succession planning and the occasional need for Interim Executive Directors. As a consultant who has five times served as an Interim ED, I agree with much of what Mr. Harrison has to say.

In Mr. Harrison's colorful example, Jack is the departing long-term Director, who helps to personally choose Jill as his successor. Jill then flounders along for about a year before being eventually replaced. The details of the scenario presented ring all too true, and a story we've all seen played out before.

An Interim ED can be a great solution following the departure of a long-term leader. It gives Board and Staff room to breath, consider mission, separate the reputation and legacy of the departing leader from that of the organization, and contemplate changes in their vision before making the mistake outlined in the blog of trying to fit Jill's round peg into Jack's square hole.

So, who should be your Interim ED?

A well-meaning board member stepping in may sound great, but unless they've sat in the ED's chair before, and have the time and attention to devote, this can be a disaster (not to mention the conflicting roles of ED and board member).

A senior staff member could be a good choice (particularly if they're "auditioning" for the permanent job), but be careful how you back-fill their regular position - or are you expecting them to do two jobs at once? Be careful of setting unrealistic expectations for anybody you put in this tight spot.

An out-of-work ED, who is looking for a permanent position has other motivations in accepting your Interim offer. They're number one goal is completing their own transition, not assisting your agency in yours. If this is somebody who you are seriously considering for the permanent position, do not make the mistake of "trying them out" on an interim basis.

Those of us who regularly take on Interim ED assignments as part of our consulting business do so because we're not necessarily looking for the gig permanently. In fact, when I've accepted an Interim job that includes searching for a permanent ED, I would consider it a conflict of interest to then apply for the permanent position.

My mission as an Interim is to work on the Board's agenda, not my own, and to facilitate as smooth a transition for the staff, clients, funders, and community as is possible.

Returning to Mr. Harrison's post for a moment, he ends on what he considers to be such an important point that he prints it in bold and underlined:

It is never a good idea to have the outgoing director have a say on his or her permanent successor.  No matter who the outgoing director is or how amicable the separation is.  Never.  Never.  Never.

I found this point surprising, and while I'm not certain I agree, thinking of some real life examples I'm not certain I can argue with him either. It certainly goes along with my point of using an Interim to provide "breathing room" for the Board and Staff to do some reflection on where they've been and where they want to go, rather than just trying to duplicate the leader who's just left - an often impossible and unforgiving task.

Yes, it may sound self-serving (and it probably is), but if your organization is facing the departure of a long-term, strong leader, bring in an Interim ED first, before starting your search for a permanent replacement. Oh, and I just might be available ;^)

Return to blogging (part two)

Yesterday I apologized for not having posted for a long while, and put the blame on two factors: being very busy, and doing a bit of soul searching. Yesterday's post covered the busy part. Today I'll tell you a bit about what I've been thinking about.

I've now been an Interim Executive Director three times, and it's always interesting, but this last assignment went on for so long (nearly a year-and-a-half) that it became in many senses more like a "real job." So the assignment ending hit me in surprising ways. There is a very real sense of loss and emptiness, much like if a "real job" had unexpectedly come to end.

I'd already been examining my consulting practice and coming to the conclusion that writing grant proposals for a variety of organizations is not how I want to spend most of my time, and have been eliminating those assignments from my client list. For a variety of reasons, I feel that outside consultants can best serve an organization by giving them the knowledge to write their own proposals, and help on a limited basis. I have come to hold the belief that a nonprofit agency that completely outsources it's grant writing is making a strategic error, and probably not getting the best value on their investment, versus building that skill in-house.

So, with no more grant writing clients, and my long-term assignment coming to an end, I've had time to think about "what I want to do when I grow up." The basic options being: continue as is, just with fewer grant writing assignments; look for a "real job" as an Executive Director or other nonprofit leadership position; or "go corporate" and get a "real job" on the other side.

After a little exploration, and talking to several people about different options for me in the for-profit world, I've come to the obvious realization that it's just not for me. I am a nonprofit guy through and through. This was an exploration I had to go through (for the elusive dream of more money and a better retirement plan, etc.), but it was a silly idea.

But I did enjoy that last Interim ED position, and I do miss it more than I expected to. And so, while I'll continue to take some limited term consulting assignments right now, I think my long-term plan is to find a permanent Executive Director (or other senior leadership) position in the nonprofit sector.

Meanwhile, I'll get back to blogging, and shift back from "contemplative mode" to "active mode." I've been sent a great new book, Grassroots Philanthropy: Field NOtes of a Maverick Grantmaker by Bill Somerville and Fred Setterberg, that I'll be reviewing shortly too.

Thanks again for your patience and support.

Return to blogging

First I must thank all of you who continued check this blog site during my extended break in regular posting. I appreciate it very much, and is one of the reasons I've determined to start posting again.

My absence has been partly due to plain old being busy, and partly due to a bit of soul searching.

First the busy part. I was completing nearly one-and-a-half years as the Interim Executive Director of Grail Family Services in San Jose. It was a wonderful and satisfying experience, through which I learned much and gained terrific insights and experience. Yes, even as a consultant, and somebody with nearly twenty years of public service, half of it in leadership positions, I continue to learn every day.

The assignment began as a simple "caretaker" role, keeping daily operations running smoothly while we negotiated a merger. As the merger talks dragged on, more leadership was required as the normal course of things brought about staff changes and all the other crises that come at nonprofit organizations on a regular basis. After nearly ten months of negotiations, and a draft of the final agreement, it became clear that the merger was not in our best interest, and talks ended.

We then began a process of determining the best path for GFS. Should we pursue another merger? With whom? Should we hire a permanent ED? Could GFS be sustainable if it remained independent? Much time had been lost with developing new funding sources when we thought we were merging. Still, the more than a year of uncertainty had taken its toll on staff, and all agreed that finding a way to make the organization stable and successful on its own was the best avenue to pursue.

After a search of several months, and interviewing some wonderful candidates, we wound up re-hiring the previous Executive Director, who was once again available. The organization is on track for another great year. I completed my tenure as Interim ED about a month ago, but I am continuing as a consultant to assist with their upcoming Strategic Planning process.

And so, that completes the "too busy to blog" story. Tomorrow I'll tell you about the soul searching, and where I am now. Thanks again for your patience during this absence.

Nonprofit Professionals - Amateur Managers?

Jonathan Peizer, of JP's Philanthropy Blog, had a great post yesterday called Being Smart and Being a Good Manager is Not the Same, and I've got to agree with him. JP says, in part:

Not that they are exclusive mind you. However, in my travels I have found many smart/intellectual/degreed people who assume that because they hold the title of manager and they are smart, they are de facto good managers. This is ironic because if you asked these same people if they were expert in an academic field that was not their own, they would defer to others who were.

Think about this in relation to how nonprofit managers come up through the ranks. People who are highly trained and qualified at helping people with their individual problems, or delivering a particular service, are put into situations where they are supervising other professionals and creating budgets, all without any prior preparation. If you ask them, they'll say they are social services experts or program experts, and that is their qualification to manage the agency, but they will never say, "I'm an HR expert and I just love spreadsheets."

After reading JP's posting yesterday, I began thinking about my own preparation for my career in nonprofit management, and now consulting.

Certainly my undergraduate degree in Politics gave me absolutely no background in supervising the work of others or running a program, let alone an entire organization. I learned critical thinking skills, I learned written communications skills, and I learned quite a bit about how to avoid some of the mistakes of the Cold War, should I ever happen to be transported back in time into Truman or Eisenhower's cabinets at certain moments in history. But I didn't learn about management.

My graduate program (Master of Public Policy and Administration, MPPA) provided a bit of management theory (Frederick Taylor and Max Weber) and organizational behavior, but the main focus of the program was on policy analysis and econometrics.

One management course I remember best from that time was one I took through the MBA program on employment law, where one of our texts was The Short Works of Herman Melville. We had a great time discussing the legal ramifications of the management decisions in "Billy Budd, Sailor" and "Bartleby the Scrivener", but I'm not sure that that's ever helped me in supervising a social worker who was dealing with her own family problems on the job.

Some of my best, and most relevant, management training came from professional development workshops at CompassPoint Nonprofit Services. I first sat in on these workshops as a staff person (I was the Director of their Silicon Valley office for several years) and eventually wound up teaching a couple of them. I continue to do occasional Supervisory Skills workshops for my clients as an independent consultant.

When I find myself wrestling with a management question, it is these workshop materials that I find myself looking back to for reference, not "Billy Budd" or "Bartleby." (Don't get me wrong; I love these stories, just not as management reference works).

(I should also mention that I had great mentoring at both CompassPoint, and at HandsNet before that, and it is that experience which most prepared me for my current role).

Which brings me back to my point and a question. How is your organization preparing your next generation of managers and leaders? Are you investing in their professional development? Are you making sure that they get the skills they need beyond program implementation, whether through workshops or mentoring?

How about yourself? Are you prepared?

Daring to Lead 2006

CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and The Meyer Foundation have just released a new report, "Daring to Lead 2006," exploring the leading causes of nonprofit executive burnout; in particular, widespread frustration with boards of directors and funders, and dissatisfaction with their pay.

We've heard much of this before - this report is a follow-up to their 2001 Daring to Lead - but the numbers are updated, and some of the recommendations are fresh. Perhaps the new report is most instructive, however, in pointing out how little actually has changed in the five years since the original report.

In both 2001 and 2006, 75% of executive directors reported that they were planning on leaving their position within five years. Nine percent of the current respondents are already in the process of leaving. Despite good recommendations in the original report, the complaints of EDs are largely the same (boards, funders, money).

As a sector are we not taking care of ourselves? Most of us get into the sector precicely because we put the needs of others ahead of our own needs. We know we could make more money in the private sector, but we do this work because we want to help, we want to make a difference.

But, at some point, we have to step back and make sure that our own needs are met. Nobody can give indefinitely when they are harming themselves. I believe that this realization is what is behind a lot of the nonprofit executive turnover.

The rapid turnover of leadership, however, harms the sector even more. So, what can we do to make the nonprofit sector more welcoming and nurturing for our executive leaders? The recommendations in Daring to Lead are a start, but this is something we all - board, staff, consultants, and volunteers - must come to terms with and make a priority for our organizations.

Download both, the 2001 and 2006 Daring to Lead reports from CompassPoint's web site.

Tags: nonprofit, leadership, nonprofit boards of directors, burnout, reports