Stanford Social Innovation Review

The same demographic shifts are going to challenge all the sectors.  But wouldn’t it be a good thing to get a change of leadership in the nonprofit sector?  New ideas, new energy ...

»» Posted by: sp on March 27, 2006 03:38 AM

I think the studies have shown the issues, now how to actually solve the problems.
Multi-year grants allow non-profits to spend less time searching for funding , and more time on mission-driven activities. 
Another possibility is to have more mergers among non-profits, or perhaps for several small non-profits to band together to share administrative, website/technology resources.  why do all small non-profits need to develop all these different expertises? Their expertise should be focused on their mission.
I think the idea of hiring executive coaches for non-profit executives is really about the pooling of expertise. How much do the executive coaches get paid? Why not put that money into providing the common administrative fund-raising and technology solutions needed for a group of non-profits.

»» Posted by: Audrey Watson on April 13, 2006 09:55 PM

It would also help if the salaries of some (not all of course) top non profit executives came back down to earth a bit.  It’s easy to understand how a non profit can lack resources if it’s paying their executive assistant $90,000 a year, and their president $250,000 a year.  I am a for profit business owner and I make sure my salary is commensurate with the wages of the rest of my staff.  I can tell you it’s nowhere near a quarter million.

»» Posted by: Estelle on April 13, 2006 10:02 PM

I have not read the report, but this idea should be connected to last years SSRI article on the “War on Ideas”.  Specifically how it adresses grantmaking that only focuses on programmatic outcomes and not leadership cultivation (and retention).

It is time for foundations and grantmakers to start thinking about the kind of core support and leadership development that these non-profits need to sustain strong and consistent leadership inorder to support people and ideas allowing both to mature together.

»» Posted by: Stacy Caldwell on April 13, 2006 10:06 PM

There are new tools available to assist executives with managing their organizations. One such tool is called ExecuVantage, just introduced into the marketplace within the last 8 weeks that is targeted to assisting human service organizations executives and Boards with the development of performance indicators, goals and objectives. It is Internet-based and very affordable!  Learn more at http://www.npsoftwareworks.com

»» Posted by: Greg on April 13, 2006 10:47 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a top-level nonprofit executive leave a job prematurely!  What I have seen is my generation, after 15-20 years in nonprofits, still waiting for those leadership positions to open up.

»» Posted by: Andrea on April 13, 2006 10:58 PM

What a waste!

I look to Lathop’s work about adequately targeting and funding those strategies and tactics that have great effect: paying for intelligence, paying for the problem-solvers, making the non-profit sector a viable career choice for our best leaders, even if they’re not born from wealthy families or married well.

As it is, try to get funding to create a manual for a standard operating procedure to roll out and leverage successes in a phenomenal, award-winning program; you can’t find any funding for infrastructure that greatly enhances capacity.

The “new leadership” in the nonprofit sector should be in the foundations, not the operating non-profits!

The operating profits only get new blood the same way they always did: people are either young enough to not worry about educating their children AND covering their parents’ health needs, or they make enough money to take some time to help their community.

Unless foundations pay close attention and objectively analyze their own biases, what will happen will be the way it always has: the dearth of qualified on-the-ground people will have the “rich aunts” go to their favorite neices, and the non-profit sector will become increasingly ineffective.

Who is requiring outcomes analysis of the Foundations?

»» Posted by: kitode on April 13, 2006 11:07 PM

The number one change needed in nonprofits is the way boards of directors operate. They micro-manage or the opposite, don’t participate. Their number one goal should be to support the executive director, yet most often, they think the exec should support them.

John Carver in his book “Boards That Make a Difference” has researched and developed a relatively new model for board responsiblity that does not hinder the executive director. Foundations could help immensely if they would fund the implementation of this model or other alternative models.

»» Posted by: Carol Shaw on April 13, 2006 11:51 PM

When nonprofits begin adopting service oriented architecture and data standards a ton of these orgs will fall by the wayside since a bank can handle the funds administration and program personnel interfacing with clients don’t require a heavy management layer. If you’re an ED you may have seen this shift in every other sector but were hoping not to be outsourced yourself…

»» Posted by: Ed Dodds on April 14, 2006 01:14 AM

The blog post wasn’t about demographics but burn-out.

There are lots of great ideas already, but they often don’t get acted for the reasons the report describes.  So why jump on the bandwagon of saying that we just don’t have “new” ideas?

»» Posted by: Chris on April 14, 2006 01:15 AM

believe there is a failure among American philanthrophic organizations.  There is too much poverty; too much deprivation, and too much dependence on things that aren’t good for anybody.  I appreciate the courage of this writer to present this information in a way that the nonprofit sector must reevaluate itself to the extent that it returns to providing for social issues ignored, abandoned, or neglected by the government.

»» Posted by: jennifera_thompson on April 14, 2006 03:00 AM

I agree with Carol Shaw above. Real problems have real solutions. Often “best-practices” is the duct tape of the organizational world. ED’s would find their boards far more effective if the board was to produce explicit value statements to design their own work outputs and then evaluate their efforts based on their statements.

Boards have an important servant leadership role to play in any organization. It includes holding the organization accountable for its product/servce and linkage to moral ownership. ED’s are usually tasked with keeping their boards busy enough to keep them distracted while the ED and staff do the real work of the organization. Boards need to quit doing that and provide the highest form of organizational leadership through excellent governance.

»» Posted by: Glen Peterson on April 14, 2006 03:48 AM

I’ve spent 5 years as executive director of two nonprofits, and I’ve worked alongside numerous e.d.’s during my 15 years in the sector, so I’m well aware that it can be a very challenging and stressful job.

But in my first e.d. position I benefited greatly from working with an executive coach, who helped me be more effective and find more fulfillment in my work.  I’ve continued to explore the practice of coaching, and I think it has the potential to be a tremendously valuable tool to help nonprofit leaders reach their full potential and avoid burn-out.

I’d encourage executive directors to look into coaching if they’re struggling with any of the issues raised above, or even if they simply feel that they’re not achieving all that they could.  And I’d encourage boards and funders to invest in one of the sector’s greatest resources by helping e.d.’s get the support that they need.

»» Posted by: Ed Batista on April 14, 2006 08:01 AM

I am probably in the minority, but I do not believe that ED positions turning over every five years is necessarily a bad thing.  Turnover caused by undue pressure, burnout, frustration, political upheaval - that is all negative.  However - I believe it is vitally important that nonprofit organizations have dynamic leadership and that such organizations NOT be defined by the individual with that dynamism.  Boards need to be strong and balance EDs.  Too often, the ED and the organization become synonymous, and then there is little or not impetus to develop a succession plan.  The ED stays longer and longer, secession becomes a distant thought, and the Board retreats into the background.  This is not how a vibrant organization maintains its conneciton to the community.  Therefore, a five to seven year stint (think term limits, in a way) is not a bad goal to shoot for.

»» Posted by: David on April 14, 2006 10:29 PM