The Center for Ethics, Governance, & Accountability

As readers of my articles already know, I believe that the Non-Profit Sector has amazing growth potential for the future. My standard pitch has not changed: the issues facing our communities today are more and more complex – and neither the government sector nor the private sector is positioned to make a difference. Accordingly, there are tremendous opportunities for Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs).

BUT, executive directors must understand some of the emerging issues in the NPO field and meet them head on. The purpose of this article is to outline several of these issues and start a dialogue among executive directors who truly get it and want to play a leadership/mentor role now and in the future. I am not interested in executive directors who are stuck in their ways – and do not get it – I want the executive directors who are on fire and ready to make a difference during what appears to be really tough times in the industry. Passionate about the role their organization can play, these executive directors are willing to surround themselves with a team of talented individuals that will position their NPO to excel among its peer group.

By the way, when I mention “peer group,” I do not mean for executive directors to think solely about their “competition” – although we would be fooling ourselves to pretend that funding for NPOs is anything but competitive, especially in this economy. However, let me urge executive directors to rise to the next level – beyond funding concerns – and realize the need to excel and benchmark against whatever norm is applicable within the NPO group to which you belong (social services, museums, schools, health care, etc.). If the performance of your NPO consistently tops those in your peer group, believe me, others are going to want to know how it was done and you will have established yourself (and your team) as performers worthy of replication. No greater honor could be bestowed. We desperately need leaders and mentors as the demands upon NPOs increase.

Let me provide some background/context as to how the subject matter of “executive directors” and “teams” came about and prompted me to write this article. I was attending a “family picnic” which we laughingly call an “experiment in humanity” because while there are several extended family members present, mainly it is an event with friends of friends by the dozens. The venue is a beautiful, rural creek bank. Nobody really knows each other, the varied walks of life (and beliefs and behaviors) are fascinating to observe, and everybody gets along really well, which several of us less-experienced “party types” find very interesting indeed. All joking aside, it’s a beautiful thing to experience and convinces me further that we can all work together for the good of our communities. So, that was the setting for a conversation that prompted this article.

One of my wife’s cousins (we call ourselves “kin”) was chatting with me about her work in social services. Let me tell you, she is one sharp cookie and her dedication to her work is exemplary. She works mainly with single moms, downtrodden in most every way imaginable, and victims of circumstances initially beyond their control (and beyond the understanding of most people in our society). The success rate is not high, the job satisfaction is hard to come by, and the current state of the economy (and the growing mindset of the American people against social service programs of all types) makes going to work after 25 years a bit less rewarding than when she first started.

I was dismayed to hear her tell me that she was pondering leaving the non-profit sector for something (anything) else. I told her that I hoped she would reconsider, that I believed NPOs were both the present and future solution to our challenges, but that I could certainly understand her frustration. I believe something is very wrong when career employees – the good ones – start thinking about quitting the profession. Why can’t it be the other way around? Why can’t the NPOs weed out the non-performers and build a team of performers? A 25-year investment of time in one field is extraordinary these days. The question I was left to ponder was how we could realistically address her frustration level.

I have written extensively on the subject of performance (ethics, governance, and accountability) and the importance of measurable outcomes within the NPO sector. While gathering my thoughts for this article, I ran across a piece (one of many) that points out philanthropists are beginning to require continuing business education – and proof of it – among the executive directors of NPOs before any contributions are made. Given our very challenging economic times, we should not expect any less of those we count on to fund our community non-profits. Especially when times are tough, even the most charitable individuals and foundations want to make sure that their donations are providing maximum benefit. And, I believe the best of the executive directors (and staff teams) should be equal to the task.

Let me be the first to admit the word “team” has been over-used – or, maybe better described as misunderstood and incorrectly used. I believe in the concept of “team” so strongly that I will never stop using the term, nor will I stop trying to explain what it really means (or should mean). That’s the purpose of the remainder of this article. Here are five issues that I believe can improve the health and performance of any non-profit:

We need to create organizational systems that supports safe dialogue.

A clear warning sign for the organization is the fear of staffers to share ideas – especially negative or corrective ones – with the executive director and/or the broader leadership team. Without an open dialogue, positive change cannot take place; without positive change, the organization will absolutely die (it’s just a matter of when). Staffers tell me all the time that “complaining won’t do any good because nobody listens,” – to which I reply no, if you do not complain, nothing can change. Complain is clearly the wrong word. Through the leadership of the executive director, staffers must feel safe in putting any and all thoughts – the very best they’ve got – onto the table (so to speak). Once an atmosphere of safety is established, it must continue to be nurtured by the executive director. We are not talking about a short-term fad; we are talking about a permanent systems shift. Such change can begin with something as simple as an request from the executive director to the staff. Depending on the depths of fear that have been established over the years, the executive director must be genuinely committed to a newly open dialogue and must continue to extend the invitation for as long as it takes to make staffers feel safe.

We need a much higher level of camaraderie among the leadership staff.

Once safe dialogue is established and trust is earned, the executive director and the staffers have a responsibility to improve camaraderie. What does this mean? It means the establishment of a true working and functional team with a genuine enjoyment of the job and the organization. Interestingly, the team approach will not work if the group has to work too hard to make it happen. You will know it has been achieved when the team is comfortable “sharing their stories” – frustrations, ideas, and suggestions. I am not suggesting that lines between professional and personal relationships be erased; instead, I am suggesting that the professional relationships become more relaxed and more productive (with everyone understanding they are part of a team with an important role to play).

Working relationships among partner organizations must be stronger.

All NPOs have relationships with other NPOs (peers) that really need to move from competitive to compassionate. The thought “we’re all in this together” applies here. We have reached the so-called ‘tipping point’ where rampant competition among service providers is no longer healthy or tolerable. Just within the last year, I have observed some very good progress on this front and it began through the leadership of the executive directors (and board members) to demonstrate uncharacteristic support of their peer NPOs. True success cannot be achieved until the staffers of both organizations feel compelled to lead change externally, which should be a positive outcome of safe dialogue and deeper camaraderie internally. I do not anticipate the ‘working relationships’ to improve spontaneously or even simultaneously; but, rather, that one organization will have to intentionally reach out (leadership, again) to another. I have seen this done successfully through a breakfast meeting of the executive directors of both organizations, and the top staffers, whereupon the executive directors make clear their desire to improve the working relationship; there is something powerful that happens when the staff is present and part of such an experience.

Everyone in the organization should be encouraged to make bold moves.

The time is now for bold moves in policy change, staff empowerment, and client expectations (for social service organizations). With safe dialogue, staff camaraderie, and strong relationships with partners, there are no systems impediments remaining that would prevent bold changes (usually to issues long known as problems in need of attention) that will improve successful service delivery in the community. This is the responsibility of every NPO. I have seen examples where two long-standing rival organizations began working together and the coalition immediately grew to twelve organizations and more. How would you define ‘bold?’ I would suggest that bold means going after the toughest issues – the ones everybody knows about but has been afraid to act – and looking for big victories from the very start. For example, I asked an experienced social service worker what percentage of the time she could identify the clients that were not going to make it before they even started. Her answer was a pretty high percentage, so why are we spending so much time with clients that don’t even want to participate and have no chance of succeeding? Bold changes are needed if we are to significantly increase the efficiency and performance outcomes of our NPOs.

The “team” (board members, executive director, staffers) must put pen to paper.

Some may call this ‘strategic planning’ – if so, that’s fine. But, after all the dialogue and team-building, nothing is going to happen unless ‘pen is put to paper’ and specific, measurable actions (forget the terms ‘goals and objectives’ – think ‘action’) are defined along with the assignment of responsibility for implementation that also comes with authority and accountability. This is a process and not an event. It must become standard operating procedure and not a document. Actions of the bold magnitude we are talking about require constant tweaking – mainly because the big issues require agreement from a number of partner NPOs.

With these five changes fully implemented, I suggest that any NPO is poised for greatness. However, I remain concerned that these changes can best be done without personnel baggage; i.e. with new executive directors, board members, staffers, partners, etc. The biggest challenge is to make the internal changes with current staff. However, we do not have the luxury of replacing staff members until the chemistry among them is just right. One thing I know for sure is that each of the five suggestions above requires the personal commitment of every individual on the team – and none requires permission from anyone other than yourself.

The Non-Profit Sector must work hard to retain its most knowledgeable and talented staff members.