But many nonprofits are so accustomed to working in adverse conditions – doing more with less, making compromises, and inhabiting a reality in which the stretch goal is to be “sustainable” rather than to truly thrive – that they may be desensitized to what urgency really feels like. Like the proverbial frog in the pan of boiling water, these organizations have adapted so well to an increasingly hostile environment that perhaps the impetus to do something about it comes too late.

Take strategic restructuring. It is encouraging that partnerships are now viewed as a positive strategic choice rather than an option of last resort, but the flip side is that we now see more nonprofits coming to the table with the view that collaboration is “nice, but not necessary.” Many of these are on solid enough footing to continue working on their own, but fail to recognize that this also makes them better positioned to engage in restructuring and more attractive to potential partner organizations. Lacking a sense of urgency, they may hesitate to own the process or really invest in moving it along. The risk here is that the window of opportunity to proactively choose a collaborative strategy rather than being compelled to it may not be open for long. Should they find themselves facing a real crisis, they may wish they had acted sooner.

Succession planning is another good example. Five or six years ago, reports like “The Leadership Deficit” touched off a sense of real urgency across the sector. The Boomers are retiring! Who will be left to lead our organizations? The mass exodus didn’t exactly manifest as predicted, as we all now know, but how many nonprofits have taken advantage of the reprieve as an an opportunity to engage in recruiting talent and developing leadership for when the day does come – as it surely will – when new leaders must take the helm?

Nonprofits face an increasingly complex set of challenges and opportunities, from major demographic shifts to competition from for-profit providers to political pressures and global economic uncertainty. The water’s getting warmer.

Do you feel the heat? Is it time to make a leap?

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?

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?

With our PONO partner, the Hawaii Community Foundation, this fall we will launch the Hawaii Emerging Leaders Program (HELP), which will adapt our proven leadership curriculum for non-CEO leaders in nonprofits in Hawaii. These are program directors, CFOs, development directors and other senior leaders who usually report to the executive director, and who may one day be executive directors themselves.

Looking towards the nonprofit sector’s next generation of emerging leaders, be sure to check out one of Rosetta Thurman’s latest blog posts, “11 Reasons Why New College Grads Should Pursue Nonprofit Careers” and Brent Copen’s recent post about the May 2010 HBR article “The Leaders We Need Now” at  our NonprofitNext blog.

Unlike American institutions such as Independent Sector or the various state nonprofit associations, members of ACEVO are chief executives, from every subsector and every size organization. With more than 2,000 members nationwide, ACEVO is a professional association of leaders, not an organization of organizations.

I marvel at the breadth of their work and the seriousness of their purpose. Most of the ACEVO people I have met are under 40, many closer to 30, and the energy in their crowded offices is palpable. I think the U.S. sector could learn from this group, and perhaps it is time we formed a similar sector-wide leadership association.

The first was a research study reported in the New York Times last month. It found that American teens basically spend every waking hour when they are not in school either texting, tweeting, surfing, or on their cell phones. They are connected 24/7. And my mom used to complain that I watched too much TV (around 3 hours a night)!

The second article, also from the Times, appeared on February 11. It described a wired school bus in Tucson Arizona. The story claims that boisterous and rowdy kids were tamed by the installation of a wifi connection so they can now do their homework on the way to school.  But I wonder how much time these kids are spending sending emails, surfing the web and otherwise doing their thing, rather than editing History essays or submitting their Biology homework, as the story claims.

So here is the part where I am conflicted. I worry that so much time spent online reduces opportunities for creative thought, friendships in the flesh, and exercise. Is this worry justified or is it just the 21^st century version of my mother’s concern that I was watching too much TV?

The opportunities to access information that teens and even younger kids have today are amazing, and whether they are ready for it or not, it is here. I recently read that a school somewhere was offering an online safety class for kindergarteners. Where does it end? Preschoolers lined up at baby Macs? Newborns lying in their cribs pushing their feet up to touch screen Internet-enabled virtual mobiles?

The most salient fact about all of this is our apparent helplessness to effect any change in our interaction with technology. We are, by mutual agreement, powerless. As soon as some new thing is created, we all flock to use it, whether we know how and why, or not. Will we someday make rational judgments about which technologies to embrace and conscious choices about how we spend our time, or are we simply consumers mesmerized by the next cool thing? And what does all of this mean or society?