Nonprofits
The Future of Leadership Development: Groups, Networks and Partnerships
Whether we seek to eliminate health disparities or prepare all children to enter school ready to learn, we do not have the leadership we need. The heroic model of leadership blinds us to the fact that untapped leadership potential exists everywhere. The dominant leadership model assumes that training individuals will better prepare them to lead strong organizations; and in turn strong organizations will produce better community-level results, but this model falls well short. Reaching the scale and scope of leadership needed to address complex issues requires new approaches to leadership development... (continue reading this blog post)
Whether we seek to eliminate health disparities or prepare all children to enter school ready to learn, we do not have the leadership we need. The heroic model of leadership blinds us to the fact that untapped leadership potential exists everywhere. The dominant leadership model assumes that training individuals will better prepare them to lead strong organizations; and in turn strong organizations will produce better community-level results, but this model falls well short. Reaching the scale and scope of leadership needed to address complex issues requires new approaches to leadership development. Our focus should be on finding, cultivating, and connecting leadership everywhere it exists; across all generations, races, communities, and organizational levels. To activate this untapped leadership potential, leadership thinking and practice need to shift in three fundamental directions:
From Individuals to Communities
Leadership is not primarily a capacity or quality that an individual possesses; it is a relational process that occurs in groups, communities and networks.
We can see tangible outcomes when we nurture leadership in communities. A great example is the work of the Promotora Institute in Nogales, Arizona. The Institute was founded by local women in the community who people turned to for health advice. Promotoras lead by listening and building trust. They look for strengths and help people make the connections they need to control and improve their lives. Promotoras have succeeded in supporting communities with few health resources to become healthier – even when their success is not widely recognized. As one promotora said, “Some business people tell me, ‘You are not efficient.’ I say, ‘We are more efficient than you could possibly imagine, because our job is to listen, find out how much of an intervention people need and connect them to solutions.’” This ability to listen and relate is at the heart of the new leadership model.
From Organizations to Networks
While leadership in organizations is positional, individual, top-down, and directive; leadership in networks is relational, collective, bottom-up, and emergent. We have an opportunity to apply network principles to our leadership efforts and tap into networks as powerful sources of innovation.
One story that illustrates the power of networks is the approach CEO Paul Levy and Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital took to respond to a $20 million deficit in 2009. Instead of convening his senior leadership team to make a decision about layoffs, Levy called a meeting with all employees. He didn’t come in with a plan; he came in with a concern. He suggested a potentially unpopular idea: protecting low-paying jobs by reducing the salary and benefits of higher paid employees – including many in the auditorium. To his surprise the room erupted in applause. His candid request led to countless suggestions for cost savings. He tapped into the power of the employee network; as a result they all jointly owned the solution. Levy modeled openness and transparency; and trusted the process to produce positive outcomes.
From Silos To Partnerships
We typically exercise and develop leadership in silos. We have separate workforces, distinct cultures, different ways of framing problems and defining solutions. Yet, this way of leading has not produced health or educational equity. Why? We have failed to recognize that producing these results requires multi-stakeholder approaches that cut across sectors and disciplines.
The African Public Health Leadership and Systems Innovation Initiative is an example of a multi-sectoral approach. This Initiative, currently being piloted in Namibia, seeks to transform a highly siloed health system. Multi-stakeholder teams of national health leaders, senior government officials, local community health providers, and representatives from business and civil society engage in problem-based learning that generates and tests innovative solutions. The group is guided through a leadership development process that breaks down barriers. Something as simple as using each other’s first names, not titles, transforms how people see themselves in relationship to each other. Transcending hierarchies and silos opens up new possibilities for addressing systemic issues that have defied solutions in the past.
Conclusion
Leadership emerges through relationships. We need to focus on building relationships and building trust. We also need to create the conditions for people to self-organize. And finally, we need to break down the silos and establish partnerships with other groups that are pursuing similar outcomes.
We live in a time of great peril and opportunity, a time that calls for a radical change in how we think about leadership. My colleagues and I have joined forces with key innovators to promote leadership approaches that are more inclusive, networked, and collective. We encourage you to join the discussion and help us promote the leadership of the future.
References:
Heifetz, Ronald et al. Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis. Harvard Business Review, 2009
Seligman, Mikaela. A Reflection on How Social Networks Can Become a Powerful Tool To Meet Basic Needs and Build Momentum for Change. The Diarist Project by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2006
Claire Reinelt, Ph.D, is Research and Evaluation Director of the Leadership Learning Community (LLC), a nonprofit organization transforming the way leadership is conceived, conducted, and evaluated. The LLC recently launched a collaborative research initiative, Leadership for a New Era, that promotes leadership as a collective process.
Reflections on a discussion about the capacity for continuous innovation in social sector organizations.
A follow up to the recent post "Some Questions About Udacity."
From the Field Series: A living case study of Makmende, which provides women in Nairobi with coordinated walking groups.
Exploring open spaces, parks, gardens, and trails as tools for social impact.
Universities are the missing link in entrepreneurship.
For “scaling what works” to actually work, we need a new and improved version that addresses two fundamental constraints.
The more we share our data with each other inside and outside of our organizations, the more data-driven we can be in our work collectively.
There's only one bottom line. It ought to be impact.
COMMENTS
BY Chris Block
ON June 15, 2010 10:58 AM
The radical change necessary is only partially explained by particular examples of people working together collaboratively based on relationships although these are important and lead to much great understanding. Rather, it is a deep appreciation that a paradigm shift is necessary because the world in the 21st Century demands it and the very future of democracy depends on it.
This urgency is created because of the two principle leadership challenges that will define the future, complexity and diversity. It can be argued, particularly in California, that there has never been a time when a community with this extreme level of diversity has been asked to solve such complex problems-and the traditional leadership paradigms are failing us in many respects.
This way of working together, a manner which is inclusive, networked, and collective, does not come naturally to us, especially when working with people who don’t look like us or who don’t necessarily share a common life experience. For this reason, the American Leadership Forum (ALF) has worked for over twenty years to bring people together in an intentional community where people can deeply explore servant leadership based on collaborative principles with as diverse a group as possible. For twenty two days throughout the course of a year people spend a great deal of time together and as a result deep relationships are formed.
It begins with taking the time necessary to explore who I am, not what I do based on my position in the world and leads to a much great appreciation for my relationship to the others in the class; a group of people that are not bound to me by blood or professional affiliation. This opportunity allows me to gain a much deeper appreciation for who I am in relationship to the world. It is a demanding process that often provokes deep personal and interpersonal understanding and a deep appreciation for effective collaborative leadership.
How does this happen?
It happens primarily as a result of the dialogue that people have with one another-lots of it over the course of the year.
The foundational belief at ALF is that when people enter into deep conversation with one another in an attempt to understand each other’s views, a deep understanding results and authentic relationships are formed; the basis for collaborative leadership.
Additionally, in a true dialogue with diverse stakeholders one will necessarily have diversity of opinion, essential to solving seemingly intractable problems. As a result, effective action based on that new understanding and these new relationships leads to different and more effective solutions to complex problems.
BY Claire Reinelt
ON June 16, 2010 10:25 AM
Thanks Chris for these reflections. The dialogue, learning, and networking processes that leadership programs, like American Leadership Forum (ALF) facilitate among diverse stakeholders is so critical to finding effective solutions to complex problems that are equitable and sustainable. I have admired the work of ALF ever since reading David Chrislip and Carl Larson’s book on Collaborative Leadership. I still think this is one of the best, most accessible books on what collaborative leadership is and how to cultivate and support it. As our communities become more diverse, we need more and more ways, both face-to-face and virtually to engage in authentic dialogue, listen to each other, weave our stories together, find “uncommon common ground,” and take coordinated and collective action. Maybe then it will start to feel more natural to work together across our differences.
BY Nikhil Gupta ( Student enrolled at Non-Profit Lead
ON October 2, 2010 04:52 PM
The leadership in the nonprofit sector is a complex issue and becomes in-proportionately bigger if you look at the leadership gap that the sector faces in the years ahead.
To address this problem the important thing is to first acknowledge it and make it a top priority to find a remedy for this situation. A timely intervention in this issue will not only help in controlling the issue but will also benefit organizations in the longer run.Closing the gap requires ability to innovate and questioning the status-quo. It needs commitment from everyone associated with the organization - right from individual members,management,fund raisers,donors and the board. Also at the sector level organizations should collaborate and widen their reach building on each other’s synergies and harness the power of untapped talent that is generated by the collective effort.
The collaboration approach will also lead to a balanced and diverse solution of the problem which is really necessary for the non-profit sector as it tries to fill an important gap in the society created by government and the profit sector.
To develop leaders for tomorrow significant money is required which is not an easy proposition for non-profit organizations as investment in leadership capabilities can be looked as overhead expenses. Hence a change in philosophy is required at the grass-root level and everyone needs to be educated on the fact that strong leadership is necessary to have an effective organization otherwise the leaders will continue to spend time collecting funds and doing day to day activities instead of creating vision and mobilizing people to support the cause of their non-profit.
BY Dan Sanchez
ON October 2, 2010 06:57 PM
I enjoyed your article. I am a student at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership Course. I think that time and time again there are examples in history demonstrating how interconnections of ideas, and the reduction of silos, can rapidly change the perspective of a problem and increase the speed and possibilities of many solutions. An easy example to cite, but complicated to detail, is the trade that developed between medieval Europe and the Far East. Until then you could say there were many silos, but then with the compass and gunpowder that were brought back to Europe from China, rapid changes began to take place, soon enabling the navigation of Europeans to the New World to conquer it, alas from the unfortunate residents. But on a more positive level, the Native American cultures had a richness of unique original agricultural products that were brought back to Europe and forever changed their cuisine, and the introduction of the Old World technology to make durable wheel bearings finally made the wheel a practical tool in Native America for use in large load-carrying wagons and pulleys, not just in small toys. Other inventions, exchanges and luxuries from trade with the East, began to enrich the lives of Europeans, and led to their own inventions and the revolutionizing of their agriculture to feed more people (for example with the introduction of the efficient moldboard plow from China to Holland in the 17th Century). The point is that none of these events would have happened with silos, and they are a historical testimony to the power of diversity of cross-flowing ideas, sources and cultures.
So leadership that knows how to find and leverage these relationships with collective talent is far more effective than one positioned individual with a top-down direction. Of course, you need a check and balance system and an accountable, organized leadership to avoid chaos. But networking with a flatter organization is truly the fastest and most effective way to find creative and exciting solutions. It leverages the most valuable resource, which is human capital. With human capital, you have a combination of experience, expertise and execution capability bringing a pool of skills to your organization. Then as a nonprofit organization, you can build bridges to other like-minded organizations with whom you can develop a network that increases the reach of your common goals with more shared resources and skills, and cross-flow of ideas, effectively growing the pie. It is also important to have among your combined skills and ability to listen to each other, and to listen to the environment that you are working in. An ad hoc flexibility, not possible with chimneys, is important in order to enable a swift response to change and ability to solve new problems with those collective capabilities. It will increase the innovation, and contribute the skills and knowledge to evaluate and modify the progress when needed. It will, as history shows us, revolutionize the scenario you are addressing and often reveal surprising new opportunities.
BY Sarah Obed
ON October 3, 2010 10:45 AM
“I am also a student in Leading Nonprofit Organizations in the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, and our class has been looking at a number of leadership qualities needed by those managing nonprofit organizations in order to develop, manage and grow these organizations. These are skills which include capacity building, organizational management, strategic planning, and goal setting. Indeed, these skills can and must be developed by those individuals leading nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, if individuals in leadership positions do not have these skills, their organizations face serious management issues to the detriment of their ability to meet their missions. I recognize that this is the model of the nonprofit sector, of a top-down approach.
However, I also agree with the statement that Leadership is not merely individual. Visionaries, strategists, volunteers, stakeholders and community members are not all in leadership positions of nonprofit organizations. And a good leader must be savvy enough to develop partnerships and networks to better meet the end goals. In fact, the evolution of technology has created the opportunity to involve and engage stakeholders in new ways – even as far as redefining, or rather better understanding, the needs and priorities of communities which nonprofit leaders are serving.
As Nikhil mentions in his comment, there is a growing need for leadership of nonprofit organizations. The argument that we need to move from a top down approach to that of networking and partnerships is key to better meeting this gap, but it is not enough. I also agree that a leader emerges through relationships, and we must build trust, and build relationships. But leadership can also be developed through the building up of skills within individuals. Which individuals? Both those that have been vetted by their communities, groups and networks, and those with passion and vision to create better communities and, as you state, with the ability to self organize.”
BY Mitch Crispell
ON October 3, 2010 12:39 PM
I appreciate your blog post and resonate with what you wrote. I especially appreciate your statement that “untapped leadership potential exists everywhere.” This affirms the work of many nonprofits who are engaging in community development work and aiming to empower community members (who many not have access to the same resources of nonprofit staff members) to share in the leadership of their community’s transformation. It also underscores the importance of shared leadership within organizations, which is something Crutchfield and Grant describe in detail in their book Forces for Good.
Clearly, there is a need for collaborative approaches and a focus on relationships. I suppose the next question we need to ask is: to what extent? Dan makes an excellent point above:
“So leadership that knows how to find and leverage these relationships with collective talent is far more effective than one positioned individual with a top-down direction. Of course, you need a check and balance system and an accountable, organized leadership to avoid chaos. But networking with a flatter organization is truly the fastest and most effective way to find creative and exciting solutions.”
In these organizations of the future, where collaboration thrives, networking is constant, and trust flows freely, how will we organize ourselves? How will we “avoid chaos” when everyone is contributing to the leading of the organization? How will for-profit companies and foundations (assuming they maintain current trends in their structures) interact with organizations who begin to resemble their own less and less? Perhaps the kind of networking and collaboration we are talking about here is meant to happen within existing structures. Maybe we ought to maintain the necessary level of hierarchy while increasing multi-directional communication.
From my perspective, the challenge is to create organizational structures that achieve all of these goals at once. We need just enough hierarchy to maintain accountability but not so much that we overly limit community-building, networking, and collaboration through all areas of an organization. We need to maintain the boundaries of individual organizations just enough to ensure organizational identity and clarity of funding processes while simultaneously investing in and engaging with networks. We must be humble enough to contribute to a movement without our organization receiving recognition and other-focused enough to see the value of building networks.
It seems to me the true challenge is balance. With a commitment to and belief in the things you mention (communities, networks, and partnerships) and an understanding of the strengths current systems offer, tomorrow’s nonprofit leaders will multiply their impact and change the world.
- Mitch Crispell
Student, University of Michigan (enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the Ross School of Business)
BY Michael O'Keefe
ON October 3, 2010 01:17 PM
Your article contains some overlap with concepts taught during a Nonprofit Leadership course with Professor Lynn Wooten at the Ross School of Business. For example, you discuss how leadership “is a relational process that occurs in groups, communities and networks.” An example from our course textbook, Forces for Good by Steve Case, “Great non-profits collaborate rather than compete with their social sector peers.” Networked organizations can help to “grow the pie” of resources available to all of them by working together and sharing their resources and knowledge. The books lists the example of YouthBuild USA which helps low income youth to learn job and leadership skills. Dorothy Stoneman, founder of YouthBuild USA, discusses how she ignored the advice of a consultant that she should focus on how to win her share of the resources available to organizations like hers. She chose instead to share the knowledge of her organization had and build the YouthBuild Coalition to organization 250 community-based nonprofits to lobby for federal money. The coalition soon found itself the recipient $40 million dollars from the Department of Housing and Urban development. Stoneman found that collectively they were able to “grow the pie” of money that they individually would not have been able to obtain.
Another good example was shared by one of our fellow students during our class discussion. She told us about a group of homeless shelters in an Alaskan town that were individually competing for limited private and government resources. With the help of another nonprofit, these shelters decided to stop competing against each other and instead band together and find out the most efficient way to use those resources. One example of this collaboration was when they each decided to focus on different demographic groups of homeless persons; one shelter decided to focus becoming a woman’s shelter while another focused on homeless families. While they individually are still able to further their missions, collectively they are better able to use those resources and hopefully they are more easily able to collaborate to find additional funding resources.
BY Adam Schmidt
ON October 3, 2010 02:48 PM
My name is Adam Schmidt and I am a student enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. After nine years of service in the United States Army, including the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and over five years as an officer in both the European and Middle East theatres, I came to the University of Michigan to expand my knowledge on leadership and Public Policy. Ms. Reinelt has brought some excellent points to light regarding a new trend in leadership development. I applaud her efforts on bringing attention to the matter with such an organized, logical approach. First, I’d like to add a brief point from my experience as a leader in the military to the discussion and second, comment on a critical point Ms. Reinelt makes in her conclusion.
It is generally agreed that the military must operate in a silo style leader environment. Without a direct chain of command that operates over responsive and duty-driven subordinates, orders and missions would become muddied - confusing operations and quite possibly costing lives. I am happy to report however, that the Army is making some progress in leadership development to the effect Ms. Reinelt describes.
Modern military leaders are being trained much differently than I was trained in a pre-September 11, 2001 world. Based on this new training and unlike any other time in their history, Army leaders are beginning to network and partner in ways never considered before. The complex, multifaceted engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan have required leaders to begin communicating outside their “silos” in order to share information as they chase a determined and often invisible enemy. Leaders understand that only complete information from the entire scope of the issue will bring success. I have witnessed these leader partnerships and leader communities take place in the strangest of scenarios – from places as primitive as bunkers in Baghdad to places as advanced as global teleconferences in the Pentagon. The Army is realizing that leaders are developed not in Academy and ROTC classrooms, but in day-to-day operations that force leaders to be collective and evolving. It is truly inspiring to witness.
To my second point, Ms. Reinhelt’s conclusion mentions, “the need to create conditions for people to self-organize.” I feel that is a major and complex part of an initiative to change leader development. I would like to make two recommendations that would support enabling potential leaders to rise. (1) It must be made clear through the culture of an organization that new leaders are being sought after and encouraged to rise. The culture of a given environment, be it corporate, nonprofit or consulting, must encourage people at all levels to voice their opinions in a responsible manner. This culture, conducive to ideas and partnerships, will allow leadership potential to come forward. (2) With the environment defined, it is important for those who have been identified “by position” as leaders (CEO, CFO, Executive Directors, etc) to be the standard bearers of positive leader development and encourage young leaders to develop in the unique ways. Ms. Renhelt is correct – without the proper environment, leadership development can not change.
I look forward to future comments – leadership matters!
BY Tina Li
ON October 3, 2010 04:27 PM
My name is Tina and I am a student enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the University Of Michigan Ross School Of Business. I wanted to thank you for your post and echo my peers’ words of appreciation. This topic is one that is constantly evolving as times and societal needs change.
I would agree with you that a shared leadership approach in the three directions you speak of will foster innovation and provide positive outcomes. I believe a diverse group of individuals with different expertise and different experiences can bring forth many positive influences to any organization. The organizations that open up conversation about the direction, strategies, and actions of the organization to its volunteers and staff members are able to establish a unique culture. Everyone wants to be able to make an impact in some form or another. This strategy helps retain volunteers and staff members—areas where there is typically high turnover.
But I do share the same concern as Mitch: “In these organizations of the future, where collaboration thrives, networking is constant, and trust flows freely, how will we organize ourselves? How will we “avoid chaos” when everyone is contributing to the leading of the organization?”
Though the structure is ideal, what does it look like in practice? Could we foresee any potential conflicts because of the hierarchal deconstruction? It seems to me that it can run into the problem of “too many chiefs.” Is it safe to assume that those involved with an organization are typically rational actors and are passionate about the cause and mission? And is this structure free from politics? With a “flatter organization,” who will ultimately make the final decision of which suggestion gets to be executed?
The best part of this conversation is that the answer will continue to change in time and across industries and sectors. And when it does work, we can start discussing if it is scalable throughout the nonprofit sector and if the for-profit sector can learn from these leadership practices.
Again, thank you for the post and opening it up for discussion!
BY Christina Tamarelli
ON October 3, 2010 05:01 PM
As the world of non-profits continues to evolve and expand, organizations will need to mold and shape themselves in new ways as you said in your article. The old mentality that the ED and other executives are the only people capable of making innovative change is outdated and somewhat insulting to other employees or volunteers. Breaking down silos and redistributing leadership is as you say, a great way of opening dialogue and addressing concerns which helps in the short term and also can help with crisis management. I liked that the Nambian initiative included “multi-stakeholder teams” including people from the base of the pyramid up. Although high-level leadership must be cultivated, I see leadership in successful non-profits being spread rather than hoarded.
I also agree that the future of leadership is in collaborating and networking. While considering partnerships the original mission must be kept in mind, no organization can be as effective working alone as it can be with a strong partner or relying on networks. Fostering a culture of collaboration rather than competition helps everyone. Organizations must be patient though, because sowing partnerships and reaching out to networks can take careful consideration and time for both sides to trust each other.
I do feel that it is important to train individuals to be strong leaders before tackling some of these challenges. Without a strong leader seeking to better the organization, change might be the impossible. In my non-profit class we did a simulation of a arts institution and before we could even think about reaching out to other organizations we needed to fix some internal problems first. Adaptation is hard, and without someone at the end of the day telling staff and the board it is worth the time and effort to build communities, networks, and partnerships, change will be next to impossible.
Let us hope as we move into the future we do not forget, “untapped leadership potential exists everywhere”.
-Christy Tamarelli
Student, University of Michigan (enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the Ross School of Business)
BY Eun-Ji Priscilla Oh
ON October 3, 2010 05:42 PM
Hi,
My name is Priscilla Oh and I’m a student enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business.
Leadership is a complicated skill. In fact, it’s not just one skill. It encompasses a variety of skills - the ability to communicate, to trust, to encourage and inspire. As you pointed out, leadership emerges through relationships. You can’t build a relationship without being able to listen and learn from one another. And, the ability to do so comes from trusting the other person. Trusting someone forces you to put down your guard, making yourself vulnerable to them as well. When your vulnerable, all your insecurities and doubts become exposed and subjected to criticism. This is where a relationship can be built on network principles. There are no egos and prides getting in the way. You build a relationship that transforms into a community.
One case study we did in class was on the NAACP and it’s slow transition from a dysfunctional to a functional board. Before the new Chairwoman was elected, the board’s leaders were involved in a sexual harassment scandal, squandering money, and only looked out for their own best interests. The new Chairwoman was decided on one vote, which meant almost half the people on the board was not happy. The first thing she did, though, was to show them that they could trust her - to be the leader that they desperately needed. She knew that this was the only way for her to building that relationship with the board members so that they could become this community of leaders for the rest of the NAACP organizations all over the nation. But, before the Chairwoman could convince the board to trust her, she had to trust herself. She had to know that was capable of fulfilling this position, which is what I believe you are implying when you wrote that “we also need to create the conditions for people to self-organize.”
This ability to be vulnerable and create relationships is especially important when trying to form a partnership. Of course, nonprofit organizations want to succeed, just like for-profit organizations (except their definition of success does differ, unless it comes to fundraising). But, unlike for-profit organizations, nonprofits don’t have the luxury to compete for clients. There are way too many people (and animals, environment, etc) in the world that need services offered by nonprofits. They have to work together to figure out a way to help as many people as they can instead of competing to create a bigger impact than the next nonprofit organization.
Lastly, I wanted to say I definitely agree that “untapped leadership potential exists everywhere.” You really never know when or where or how a great leader will emerge. It’s important to remember that everyone has potential, and a great leader knows that and will do everything he/she can to encourage and foster that potential.
BY Shuli
ON October 3, 2010 05:42 PM
The role of the nonprofit leader today and in the foreseeable future will be one of mastering fluidity, complexity and turmoil. To be successful, individuals will need to develop both technical skills and leadership competencies. Organizations must become more intentional in growing leaders to ensure they have the talent within the organization to manage. They will need to do this by explicitly placing value on and investing in the professional development process.
I agree in your article, that you point out developing leadership not only from individual aspect but also from community, network, and partnership level. In our Leading Nonprofit Organization class in the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, we also discussed the skills of nonprofit leadership which include capacity building, organizational management, strategic planning, and goal setting, etc.
The arrival of the knowledge era is more and more knowledge based. Work is no longer adopted by traditional separated departments system but by the interaction between the individual. People in traditional hierarchy system of the leadership will be challenged. Crossing training is very often and boundaries are not obvious any longer. As more and more effective reform in the organization itself, there are more opportunities for those leaders in the organization’s middle level manifest themselves. By various roles of the pyramidal organization is gradually opening equality, organization structure is gradually become decentralized. Personal influence and the connotation of leading authority may be replaced. The main function of the new leadership of the organization is to adapt to the new reality and meet the challenges caused by value.
BY Amanveer Singh - Student Non-Profit Leadership (U
ON October 3, 2010 07:25 PM
Hi,
I am enrolled in Non-Profit Leadership course at University of Michigan, ROSS School of Business.
Thanks for the article. I concur with your belief that leadership is no longer confined to organizational boundaries. Leadership is less about succeeding yourself and more about enabling your people to succeed; it needs a collaborative environment, trusting relationships and an effective network.
In the modern world, where resources are scarce, true leadership would be to partner with other organizations with similar goals and cause. It leads to more efficient utilization of resources and creates a win-win situation for everyone.
Organization responsibilities these days are no longer limited to just making profit, they need to be socially more responsible. Profit or funding are not the sole differentiator of performance in modern era, a responsible organization is also expected to think about People, Planet and Principles. Success in these external factors needs a shared leadership and community based approach.
I work in telecommunications industry and the speed of change in this industry is exponentially increasing. External factors, disruptive technologies and acquisitions are impacting the industry every day. In this dynamic environment leaders need to work across organizational boundaries to collaborate effectively and to have timely access to right information. They also need to be flexible and try out different approaches. This is important to make organization more agile and nimble, so that it can respond to changes faster.
Also, with globalization and increasingly geographically diverse teams, a leader can no longer be effective by holding the command from one central office. He needs to be more democratic and decentralize the decision making by empowering his people.
BY Mark
ON October 4, 2010 05:51 AM
Hello my name is Mark Nunez and I am MBA student at the University of Michigan. I would like to add a post to add to the topic of leadership issues with nonprofits.
Having a human capital strategy is an important part of effective leadership and the notion of shared leadership is key to this. A leader within an organization may be especially proficient at motivating others, yet may not be as strong in financial matters. The ability of a leader to know what he/she is good at and involve the talents of others is essential. In this case to find an expert leader to show people the numbers and communicate what they mean to the organization. I also believe though leadership involves having proper metrics, benchmarks in place to measure success and impact of an organization’s actions. These measurements may not be all quantitative in nature, but feedback is necessary to evaluate the performance of an organization whether it be a nonprofit or for profit organization. A qualitative measure might be a compelling story that illustrates the positive impact a program of an organization has had on the community. It’s important for leaders to advocate a clear vision and strategy that provides concrete goals for an organization. Measuring these impacts ensures the organization is following its mission, is aware of the changing external environment and is working effectively outside the boundaries of their organization.
I agree with your statement that we should find, cultivate and connect leadership wherever it exists. To this end finding leadership is important but I believe that the development and retention of leaders is also vital. Can we have our current leaders mentor others on what they have come across in their experience as to what are effective techniques and best practices? Can we recognize, reward and challenge people within our organization in a way that engages them so they want to continue to work in our organization and develop it? Can we prepare leaders to effectively adapt to and manage change? We also need to seek leaders who are motivated with something beyond pay, and that are truly passionate about the cause of our organization. That passion can be contagious, and can motivate others within the organization in times of success, hardship or crisis.
I believe it is important to stress that shared leadership within an organization is important because no one person knows everything. What happens when the next generation of leaders needs to take high management positions within an organization? If the next group of leaders is not prepared to lead then if a key leader is lost then this could have negative consequences on an organization. By empowering people early in the process by sharing knowledge and responsibilities, leadership can be a powerful tool to engage the talents of everyone in a business or organization.
I agree that the pattern of leadership within silos is not effective and that we must engage many stakeholders in order to generate and test innovative solutions. Breaking down silos can be difficult without creating opportunities for people within an organization to actively participate in meaningful experiences where they feel they have a positive impact. This relates to the external environment of an organization (corporate sponsors etc), and internally as well (individual volunteers, staff of the organization etc). Including various stakeholders across different sectors also helps an organization reach a greater audience, and take advantage of knowledge and expertise outside of the organization. In other words, you can mobilize different sectors in a society to help your organization accomplish your goals. This is much more effective than trying to accomplish the same task purely on your own.
BY Sara Bonner
ON October 4, 2010 07:30 AM
Hello, my name is Sara Bonner and I am a student enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the Ross School of Business.
The nonprofit sector faces more challenges than any other sector. One of its largest challenges is attracting and developing leaders who are impassioned by the organization’s cause, but also have the ability to efficiently manage the organization through challenges, changing times and an often unpredictable external environment. The entry above truly hits the nail on the head as it addresses the shortcomings of the dominant leadership model. While I believe that every leader must possess innate qualities conducive to leadership and can develop further qualities through directed training, to say that these factors exhaustively define a successful leader would be daft.
With the breadth of challenges facing nonprofits, a leader must utilize the greater community to find success within his own organization. Ms. Reinfelt highlights communities, networks and partnerships to emphasize the transition the nonprofit industry’s leaders must make from the current internal approach so many take. One specific way nonprofit leaders can add value to their organizations is by developing and maintaining partnerships with other nonprofits. Whether these partner organizations work in the same community or provide the same service, collaboration reduces the potential of an organization “reinventing the wheel” in response to challenges faced. In larger communities, nonprofit associations exist to connect nonprofits and provide resources. However, even in smaller communities without these formal organizations, partnerships can be created when leaders reach out to and engage with other organizations. Informally, information can be generated and often times resources shared. In the for-profit world, industry collaboration is commonplace. There is no reason a nonprofit leader shouldn’t enlist the knowledge, experience and ideas of his nonprofit community colleagues. While this involves an investment of time to form the networks, this collaboration will pay off in the future as the nonprofit has access to greater resources.
This type of collaboration seems to work well among international NGOs at the field-level of operations. Spending two years in Southern Sudan, I experienced this collaboration first-hand. As NGOs, we met frequently to share information and guidance on institutional donor grant applications, learn of vacancies among the NGOs to help one another with staffing issues, and discuss programming best practices. This arrangement worked well because each organization recognized the difficulties of working in this environment. If one organization gained access to important information or resources that would benefit the NGOs as a whole, they shared this information with the entire NGO community, recognizing that this would be reciprocated in the future. This community collaboration has also inspired NGO head offices to collaborate with their respective NGO communities. Now, in cities like Washington D.C., London and Geneva, one can find formal NGO networks.
BY Bruno Vanzieleghem (Ross MBA Student, Non-Profit L
ON October 4, 2010 09:48 AM
It is hard to argue against the value of shifting leadership from individuals to communities, and breaking down silos to form partnerships. Empowering communities effectively creates motivated volunteers and advocates for the mission of the organization, one of the key factors to success for nonprofits. Breaking down barriers between sectors and disciplines is crucial to creating significant impact. Successful nonprofits have often created wide ranges of partnerships, with government organizations, for-profit companies, and other nonprofits to grow funding for their cause, to share knowledge, develop leadership, or to work in coalitions.
It is indisputable that failures in educating children or eliminating health disparities are prevalent in both the US and overseas. However, I am not convinced our lack of success in replicating solutions can be traced back to the traditional positional leadership? If we look at for-profit organizations, leadership models vary widely from industry to industry, and within industries. In highly functional organizations, the organizational structure takes on a form in line with the business mission, and appropriate for the lifecycle of the business. Clearly, emerging opportunities in industries with a high rate of change need flat, network oriented organizational structures to allow them to respond effectively to the dynamic environment. If we look at mature industries, with a more stable macro-economic environment, more traditional top down leadership is crucial to improving productivity and asset efficiency.
If we consider health care or education, successful models for delivering these services are visible all around the world, in both developed and developing nations, with excellent leadership in place. While not every successful model is easily replicable, and the realities of CAGE (cultural, administrative, geographic, and economic) differences matter significantly, organizations with often traditional leadership structures exist that have effectively delivered health care and education. Replicating successful programs at a large scale needs an effective structure, to use assets effectively and efficient. The positional leadership structure far from excludes substantial involvement of the employee or volunteer network. Actions such as described at Beth Israel are becoming more and more common even in traditional for-profit organizations, a clear sign that even within traditionally organized institutions, openness and transparency are valued more and more. I think the need to move from organizations to networks should be more nuanced, organizational structures need to be in place that are appropriate for the mission of the organization, and should embrace openness and transparency, which are at the core of tapping in to everyone in the organization and beyond.
BY Lauren Cooper
ON October 4, 2010 05:56 PM
Leadership in organizations can, and should, come in many forms. One important element of nonprofit development is the ability to share leadership and to nurture leaders within the organization. In order to utilize human capital in an effective way, it is essential to build leadership within the organization. There are many avenues to achieving great use of human capital, including board management, volunteer fulfillment, employing engagement, and program effectiveness (if it reaches the general public). These resources are often underutilized by non profits, but harnessing their power can lead to dramatic results. Individuals engaged in an organization on various levels can act as ambassadors for the organization. By defining valuable opportunities for these actors, it is possible to effectively nurture leadership from volunteers, it is essential to provide them with fulfilling work. Also, findings unique ways to connect them to the goal and mission of the organization will encourage a deeper feeling of connectedness to the organization. This feeling can in turn build leadership and capacity in human resources as the volunteers feel engaged, excited, and appreciated.
Particularly, engaging board members in goal oriented tasks keep them focused and feeling productive. This is preferable to long and drawn out committee business that provide little return to the individual board member. Further, it is essential to discover and tap into the individual skill sets of the board members, and find ways for them to contribute that skill to the organization. Also, it is best if board members are provided a direct avenue to connect with the cause of the organization. The more inspired that they feel by these engagements, the more motivated the board member remains.
It is essential to nurture leadership in alternatives locales. Organizations can become increasingly powerful and capable by taking the time to analyze the points in which power can be shared among a range of actors and individuals. This can be done by levelling staff responsbilities, factoring in feedback, and encouraging participation from all involvement levels. By building networks of influence that shift away from the traditional executive leadership, organizations and networks become more flexible, transparent, and responsive to the world around it.
BY Simon Tam
ON October 4, 2010 06:36 PM
I would like to first thank Claire for her enlightening comments on the problems of leadership development and possible solutions to redress this issue. My name is Simon Tam and I am a student currently enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business.
We have been discussing the importance of leadership and means to sustain excellence in nonprofits. In particular, we have explored ways in which leaders can adopt and execute a theory of change within the organization. I certainly recognize and appreciate your reference to the importance of networks as they pertain to our globalized community where communication is almost instant. However, I am hesitant to conclude that leadership is not an individual quality but rather a relational process. In my opinion, a relational process in leaders is not a premise for good leadership but rather the product of good leadership. In a world dominated by complex systems and at times, overlapping ideas and even funding sources, sound leadership must be directive and founded upon a clear articulation of vision and aspiration that is unique to the organization. Geoffrey Canada, CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone certainly used networks and shared leadership as a vehicle for change; a concept you alluded to. However, these actions were not guided by networks or a community but were premised upon Canada’s clear vision for the organization and his aspirations to have a cumulative and scalable impact on a designated population in Harlem.
I certainly value your comments that emphasize the importance of communities, networks and partnerships as I have adopted such strategies in my previous work experiences. However, just as Paul Levy came into a room suggesting an unpopular idea and eventually generating widespread support, I believe that effective leadership first emanates from individual capacity and extends to communities thereafter.
BY Elliot Sims
ON October 4, 2010 07:34 PM
I couldn’t agree more with the strategic direction as outlined in this post. Through my personal experiences and coursework in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the University Of Michigan Ross School Of Business, I believe the recommended strategy can greatly expand an organization’s capacity building opportunities and makes it better suited to compete for scarce resources in today’s economic environment.
I recently had the opportunity to volunteer in a community-based organization that epitomized the difference between these dichotomous strategies. The organization mandated a hierarchical reporting structure with decision-making authority rarely delegated from the Board Directors to staff or volunteers. Strict channels of authority and a dearth of interaction between operating committees added to the lack of discourse and understanding of the organization’s purpose. Volunteer and staff morale sunk and individuals with leadership abilities abandoned the organization due to bureaucracy and power obsessed politics.
A group was granted permission to work outside these constraints to attempt a new world record. The committee’s leadership actively sought committee members from all areas of the organization, flattened the chain of command and delegated power to individuals to encourage “buy-in” from all sects of the organization. The willingness of the committee’s management to allow volunteers to manage and design tasks in their own way lead to several individuals not known for their leadership ability to come forward and shine. Additionally, these new leaders relied on their personal networks to supply costly resources and source the additional volunteers needed to complete their tasks.
Allowing individuals and communities to take ownership increased their commitment to the project and attracted the capacity needed to complete the project from external sources. This capacity building made the record attempt successful, which it would not have been under the previous conditions, and added new capacity for the organization going forward. I have no doubt that this leadership model would be equally successful in other settings with different challenges.
BY Ryan Gordon
ON October 4, 2010 07:37 PM
Ms. Reinelt,
I am also a student of nonprofit leadership, studying under Professor Lynn Wooten at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. In preparing to post, I read a number of your other blog entries on leadership and found the additional material to be really helpful in further fleshing out your thoughts on nonprofit leadership.
I agree with your premise that the leadership model is evolving and that many organizations (not just nonprofits) are poised to take advantage of untapped resources. Clearly, one of the common threads between the “three fundamental directions” and the associated anecdotes was the need for transparency between partnering organizations. In reading the narratives, the examples demonstrated situations in which the interests, goals, and specific outcomes of the potential partners were largely aligned (i.e. the Deaconess hospital is in financial duress and we all need to act now, and differing stakeholders in Namibia all seek to improve public health). I completely agree there is opportunity for innovation, research, best practices, and fund sharing between organizations dedicated to the same cause (such as improving children literacy or combating a disease), but I’m personally very interested in how dissimilar organizations can leverage equally powerful networks and relationships. In particular, I’m interested in how healthcare nonprofits can partner with nonprofits guided by differing objectives or even corporations and engage in a mutual transfer of value and innovation. For example, do capacity building partnerships exist between nonprofits with different missions such as arts/humanities with a nonprofit focused on curing a disease? As another example, has your research found examples of nonprofits whose mission is to eradicate a disease, effectively partner with a pharmaceutical company who makes money in treating the disease?
Second, I’m interested in your perspective on the place of innovation in the “three fundamental directions of leadership.” Much as innovation is sweeping the corporate world across functions and industries, a networked nonprofit leadership model seems to be a potential catalyst for great capacity building and resource sharing. Would you characterize decentralized innovation as the driver for the change in the leadership model or is innovation a positive output of further developed partnerships, networks, and communities?
Thank you,
-Ryan
BY A. Sharma
ON October 4, 2010 07:58 PM
(Note: I am a student who is enrolled in a Nonprofit Leadership course at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business.)
In the initial post in this thread, the author argued that we need to look beyond the “heroic model of leadership” focus on finding untapped sources of leadership potential. To achieve this, the author suggested that we must shift our focus from the developing the individual to building relationships and building trust, create an environment where people can organize themselves, and build partnerships between groups with the same goals.
I agree that we must look for leadership in a variety of places, striving to empower individuals from a variety of backgrounds. I also accept that continuing to envision leadership solely as a top-down process fails to take advantage of the vast potential and insights that arise from throughout an organization or group. Finally, I, too, think there is much value in remembering that an organization exists to meet some need or promote a cause, not merely sustain itself, and should view others working toward similar ends as potential collaborators rather than competitors.
However, I do not believe that we need to choose either a relational or capacity orientation when trying to understand leadership. While I understand that for too long, certain individuals and even entire communities have been overlooked as potential sources of leadership, I believe that we can generate a more inclusive idea of leadership that utilizes the power of networks while recognizing the role that individual leaders play in developing and maintaining them. While I cannot speak to the specific examples offered in the initial post, I would like to suggest that individual leaders can play an important role in creating an organizational culture where people feel empowered to offer their insights and make decisions that affect their lives and work. In my mind, the question we should be asking is not whether relationships are more important than individual leaders, but how individual leaders can help organize and strengthen those relationships to form an effective network.