If you have followed the emergence and spread of the Occupy Wall Street movement, you can see these trends at work – and it’s precisely the changes implied by the trends that have made this a difficult story for traditional media to cover.   How many times have you seen reports that this is a “leaderless movement?”  In a session on social change at the recent Independent Sector conference, a young woman expressed her frustration at this term, saying “The problem that people seem to have in understanding OWS is that it is, in fact, a leader-full movement.”  She makes a good point.   Those involved are sharing leadership, inviting others to engage in the movement, and they are using technology to communicate broadly and through open channels – but not necessarily the channels to which traditional media are accustomed (no one issues press releases announcing the next day’s events).

If we try to understand what is happening in the sector through applying an older framework, we are likely to end up with a conundrum like that expressed by Arthur Brisbane in the New York Times in which he says “Occupy Wall Street has proved to be a difficult sprawling story to report” and one that has generated a great deal of reader concern about the coverage.  Much of the concern seems rooted in the challenges of applying an old framework (single leader, traditional means and channels of communication, civic engagement bounded within a hierarchical institution) to an emerging new world.

Can advocacy organizations learn anything from the spread of OWS around the country and the world?

Has the media’s confusion regarding the “message” of OWS caused you to look at your communications strategy?  Which way are you going?

AbilityFirst is a Southern California nonprofit serving people with developmental disabilities.   They came to La Piana Consulting at the height of the Great Recession in 2009 in order to think about strategies for responding to economic change.  Our Real-Time Strategic Planning (RTSP) process was a perfect fit for their needs because they wanted to know how to make good decisions in the face of change, and RTSP focuses on creating a Strategy Screen—or list of criteria—to guide decision making.

The challenge: the state of California provided approximately 50% of AbilityFirst’s funding either directly or indirectly—and the state was in the throes of a major budget crisis.  The last state budget process had resulted in significant cuts to state funded services, and the prospect for additional major cuts in coming years was certain.  AbilityFirst knew they had to be prepared to survive these cuts.

Over a period of two months we used the RTSP process with a committee of board members and senior managers to develop critical elements of the Strategy Screen and to analyze information about other providers in the field.

For AbilityFirst, the process focused extensively on identifying the organization’s competitive advantages and using that as primary criteria to guide decision making.  These competitive advantages included specialized facilities for both camping and after school programs that no one else could match, as well as a significant financial reserve.

On a sunny winter day in a meeting room overlooking the Santa Monica beach, the full board of directors gathered for a planning retreat.  The specific agenda was to confirm the Strategy Screen that had been developed by the RTSP committee, then apply that screen to the Big Question facing AbilityFirst: which programs would receive priority protection as funding diminished?

The board quickly approved the Strategy Screen and systematically applied the tool to consider the organization’s ten programs.  The discussion was focused, but rich in details that staff would later use in executing on the board’s decisions.  By the end of the day, the board had identified two programs as not core to fulfilling the organization’s mission.  The staff had its marching orders: consider how to shed these programs over time in a responsible way.

Over the next six months, one of the two programs was easily transferred to another agency, ensuring that clients received ongoing services.  The second involves complex and long-term financial and legal agreements and could not be eliminated in the short term.  That said, the organization continues to negotiate a possible transfer of the program to another nonprofit specializing in the field.

The State of California continued to face major budget challenges in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 fiscal years, resulting in further cuts in funding for the developmentally disabled.  AbilityFirst was ready and continues to thrive.

The result: AbilityFirst continues to be a highly focused nonprofit providing the most effective, high quality services possible to meet the needs of its clients and to fulfill its mission.  In the face of financial pressures, it is operating in a manner that is sustainable over the long run and now has decision making tools at its disposal to continue to develop and refine future strategies.

PHOTOS: Courtesy AbilityFirst and Jim Douglass

Leadership requires more than the confidence to stand up and offer to lead. In fact, there are three skill areas that must be built or honed for someone to truly claim the mantle of leadership.

1. Self-Awareness.

You must have an understanding and appreciation of who you are as a person, and how you manage yourself. This includes:
•   Knowing skills, limits, strengths, and competencies through realistic self-appraisal
•   Developing control, self-regulation, and an ability to “live in the response, not the stimulus,”
•   Understanding time vs. energy management
•   Maintaining a deep commitment to personal and professional growth
•   Having the ability to monitor and regulate self-efficacy

2. Understanding of Others.

Another key element of leadership requires your ability to connect and influence others.  These skills include your:
•    Capacity for deep listening
•    Development of personal voice and an ability to influence others
•    Aptitude to affirm, connect with, and correct others
•    Ability to have difficult conversations
•    High level of cultural competency
•    Ability to forge and deepen interpersonal relationships
•    Improvisational skills

3. Organizational Impact.

Leaders need to understand how to create and direct an organization beyond standard operations.  These skills include:
•    Understanding how organizations work
•    Creating organizational engagement and alignment
•    Building and directing teams
•    Thinking strategically

Given these key elements above, leadership development programs require a combination of:

Self-reflection: participants must be given an opportunity to see themselves as others see them in order to build their strengths and minimize any weaknesses in their self-presentation, communication style, or other behaviors.

Peer learning and networking:  sessions must include time for participants to connect as peers through both structured activities and exercises and through open discussion.

Hard skill development: participants must learn something new and useful during each session, such as how to manage a troublesome staff member, develop a personal performance plan, or more effectively run a board meeting.

Through research and practice, we have found that there are 5 essential program elements to build multi-dimensional leaders in a setting that builds hard skills, creates a strong peer network, and allows for self-reflection and personal growth.

The 5 essential elements of a leadership development program are:

1. Community. Both seasoned organizational leaders and emerging leaders achieve transformative learning when part of a community of peers.  The shared experience of self-examination and skill development creates a sense of shared identity for moving forward together and a mutually supportive community to draw on once the formal program ends.

2. Context. The individuals in the program must be able to leave behind for the moment their organizational context in order to explore issues, solutions, and new skills that will help them to address their work challenges. In this way they will return to their organizational home ready to practice what they have learned.  The workplace then becomes a real-life learning laboratory where new skills and confidence can be applied.

3. Clinic. Each time the learning community gathers “the clinic” provides a vital connection between practice and learning.  Based upon case study methodology borrowed from the social science/educational/  disciplines, individuals have the opportunity to present a current issue or problem they find challenging.  The community becomes a problem solving resource that sheds light on the underlying issues and provides an opportunity for problem-solving engagement for all participants.

4.  Coaching. Strong leadership programs include assessment tools as well as qualitative feedback to build self-knowledge.  Incorporating individual executive coaching allows each participant to translate data and feedback into actions to address weaknesses and reinforce strengths.

5. Curriculum. The curriculum must choose from among the wide array of topics and sub-topics related to leadership and management.  Topics must inform and build upon each other while integrating solid, proven nonprofit management and leadership practices.  The curriculum must also be applicable and understandable from a range of diverse perspectives and delivered in a manner that connects with adult learners.

We have used this holistic approach towards leadership development programs and learning communities from Honolulu Hawai’i to Fargo North Dakota. What elements do you think are most critical to a leadership development program?

My colleague David La Piana and I have both observed the dynamic of parallel process within the sector. This Nonprofit Paradox has been defined as, “what an organization seeks to solve or resolve in society, they recreate as a problem internally”. We see this as not only an issue among staff, but unfortunately in the way we in the sector can treat candidates for positions with our organizations.

I have had the pleasure to teach in the nonprofit graduate program at the University of San Francisco. You meet some great dedicated professionals in the field. I am fortunate enough that some of them keep in touch, or drop me a note about where they are and what they are doing.

Recently, a former student of mine shared her experiences of searching for a job in the field.  We all know that it is tough market, that more nonprofits are laying people off than hiring, and that there are some very talented, committed people looking for work.  That can make organizations a little cocky- sitting in the power position of having the option of choosing the cream of the cream.

Since December of 2010 this young woman has applied to over 50 jobs and has had over 30 interviews, either over the phone or in-person.

She shared with me the following experiences:

• One interviewer fell asleep in our interview.
• Another was so rude that I got home and called their HR director to complain and retract my app. Their director of programs later called me to try and convince me to go back in because the rude interviewer/potential supervisor only liked me out of their candidates.
• An org turned me down via email and in the next paragraph asked me to volunteer my time with the department that wouldn’t even interview me.
• Feedback from another was that I need to cut my hair (it’s long, but groomed and just fine).

She went on to list the number of organizations that simply canceled the position, put hiring on hold, did not make a decision or simply never responded to her.

We have to do better. We have to treat candidates with respect that they deserve.  There is vulnerability to those who are seeking work and opening themselves up to the possibilities, as well as the probabilities of not getting the job.

I will let my former student speak for herself:

Simply, if they can’t send a basic email to inform candidates of their search progress or that they aren’t advancing to the next round, they should revise their operations and staffing capacity in recruiting. They are giving their organization a bad reputation and limiting future partnerships. And I know that I’m not the only person with a list like this.

So, if you’re looking for a job and not having luck, understand that companies don’t have it together right now. Keep at it and don’t be too critical of yourself.

Tell us what you think.  Do you have any advice to add?

Brown’s camp accused the League of siding with a “liberal” agenda, while McCaskill and other Democrats also cried foul, calling the ads “not helpful.” But beneath the predictable campaign damage control lies the fact that those on both sides of the political aisle were so utterly shocked that an organization like the League of Women Voters would take such a direct approach.

Accustomed to the League’s more comforting strategies of publishing voter guides and politely issuing position statements, even some League members themselves were taken aback when the organization finally raised its voice to be heard over the noise in the modern political arena.

It was this break in character, in fact, that made the ads so powerful.

I’ve experienced this myself, on a personal level. With a quiet demeanor and a tendency to listen and analyze information in group settings rather than express every idea that comes into my head, it’s a rarity when I speak up, drive home a point, or voice frustration or dissent. But when I do, you can bet I have the ears of the group. And I also understand that with that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely, lest I lose it.

The League of Women Voters’ recent decision to step outside of its own comfort zone, and to risk its image in the minds of others who prefer its more passive persona, is one that I was glad to see it make – not only because it seemed to confirm that the organization does have power at its disposal, but because as League advocacy committee chairwoman Judy Duffy said to the Times, it honors the activism of its founding mothers, who “were not shrinking violets.” At the same time, I hope that it continues to wield this power judiciously, in a way that strengthens its identity, rallies its constituents, and advances its mission.

In what ways might your organization – or you as a professional – consider judiciously stepping outside your box to take a stand, flex your power, or make your voice heard?

In the case, a long-slumbering board hires an entrepreneurial executive director to revitalize their museum. He brings in a small cohort of new board members who are local business leaders. Fundraising increases, and the business board members are highly involved, then they become too involved. They make executive decisions behind the director’s back, move the museum’s banking to the board chair’s bank, buy office equipment from another board member’s company, and tie the museum’s signature event to their businesses.

You can imagine the end of this story. Both the executive director and the board chair submit resignations in frustration and the organization is on the brink of collapse.

When I use this case I ask students, or workshop participants, to first determine what actually happened. Step by step, I want them to understand how the decisions unfolded and the relationships unraveled?

Then I ask them to apportion blame among the various parties – there is plenty to go around. Finally I ask them what could be done now. This usually leads to a lively discussion.

Cases are a powerful learning aid, a realization which brought me the following insight: could a nonprofit experiencing significant internal conflict or lack of clarity benefit from writing its own case?

The idea would be to gather organizational leaders from board and staff and give them a structured writing exercise where they describe the road that has gotten them to their current situation. What key decisions, external circumstances, and relationships were most significant? Maybe do it in small group format so that they can later compare and contrast different versions of the story.

This would lead to an airing of different viewpoints and ultimately, with luck and good facilitation, to a shared understanding of the present situation. With agreement on the “what happened” question, I would ask them to address the causes of their current situation, and then what can be done about it now?

This process follows the model of my big picture view of strategy. It asks: where are we, how did we get here, and what do we do about it?

I usually bite my tongue in those situations but I am always left wondering, would your foundation buy a house and then not replace a faulty furnace or broken hot water tank? Would they buy a new car and then never change the oil or spark plugs?

The point is that when you invest in something important you take care of it, you make sure it operates smoothly and occasionally you upgrade it. You don’t just buy it and let it fall apart.

Yet the “no capacity-building” movement among funders, and its close cousin the “no indirect cost” school of thought , somehow assume that the organization’s infrastructure can run on air while the funder’s money goes into the important stuff, the program.

How many times has a funder invested heavily in a new idea only to see it fail to produce the desired outcome? The funder usually decides the innovative idea just wasn’t the right solution and moves on.

However, I know from experience that in many of these situations, the programmatic idea never had a real chance to succeed because a weak board, poor financial management practices, lack of a clear organizational identity and purpose, or similar infrastructure weaknesses doomed the program, and the organization itself, to failure.

If the funder had invested in strengthening the organizational infrastructure, as un-sexy as that might be, the innovative program idea would’ve had a better chance for success.

Be realistic, not overly optimistic. Optimists have a harder time coping with setbacks. Realists expect them. Nonprofit leaders have to be ready to guide the organization through anything.

Build strong social supports. People need to lean on one another in hard times. Nonprofit success depends on the support and mutual goodwill of colleagues.

Have faith in God or in yourself. You have to believe in something, either external or internal to yourself. Self-confidence is essential to leaders, it inspires others to believe.

Be creative and cultivate the ability to improvise on the spot. Life is unpredictable.  Seldom does anything in a nonprofit follow an expected trajectory.

Focus on the larger picture, don’t get lost in the weeds. For leaders, the details are not as important as the vision of where you are going and why. Find someone else who can take care of the small picture and dream big.

Help others to focus on the needs of others, Model and spread altruism. Nonprofit leaders need to demonstrate care for their employees. Offer them the best salaries and benefits, and the most congenial workplace, you can afford.

Practice gratitude. Remember how lucky you are, and thank others for their help.  An organization is a collection of individuals acting in concert. While the leader gets all the glory (or blame) s/he should continually recognize those who make success possible.

Why are nonprofit organizations so often plagued by the very ills they aim to cure?  Read the article online, or download a PDF, and let us know what you think.

As Valerie Lies, President and CEO of the Donors Forum, described in her powerful opening remarks to the 600 guests of last week’s event, Chicago is struggling with many of the same economic and political challenges as the rest of the country.

I described La Piana Consulting’s NonprofitNext research and the five key trends that are converging to reshape the social sector landscape.

Joining the discussion was Mae Hong, Director of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Nicole Robinson, Director of Kraft Foods Global Community Involvement division, and Ricardo Estrada, Chicago’s First Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Family and Support Services.

The panel itself represented the future, with young and diverse leaders, whose affiliations spanned a blurring of sectors across government, philanthropic, and corporate social action.

Where will you take nonprofits next? Join the conversation today!