Leadership is one of the most talked about, but least understood concepts in the Non-Profit field. There seems to be consensus that not all managers are leaders. There is however less consensus regarding the principle of whether managers are “made” and leaders “born”. Both of these aspects are of importance in terms of leadership versus management in the Non-Profit sectors, and the debate is ongoing.
Of even more importance is actively promoting and endorsing the debate on the need of leadership in the Non-profit sector
As in most organisations, Non-Profits needs both managers and leaders – most have managers, but many lack leaders. Many managers are extremely capable in performing individual management tasks of planning, controlling, organising and leading. But many management teams are ineffective because they are waiting for decisions that are not forthcoming. They are confused and frustrated by the organisations lack of priorities, poor communication, the fact that the organisations ideals do not match day-to-day reality, decision making processes that are not clear, internal controls and systems that do not produce, focus on technical issues as opposed to principles etcetera. The aspects that confuse and frustrate managers are easily addressed by leadership.
In the corporate world No business would deliberately under-invest in the leadership team that are responsible for delivering the required and agreed results. However, in the Non-profit field many Non-Profits themselves, or the funders who fund them, are limiting the time and resource invested in leadership development or recruiting
No business, looking to be around in the future, would underinvest in succession planning. However, we continuously fail to do leadership succession- planning in the Non-Profit field.
No business would blindly keep supporting a leader that does not deliver: Headlines regularly inform us of the public downfall of leaders. The failure of these leaders can be linked to various reasons
Shift in leader’s focus (thinking becomes more contractive than expansive);
Risk aversion (driven by fear of failure rather than a desire to succeed)
Lack of Integrity (when achieving results become more important that the means of their achievement)
Relying of the title to lead – a good leader does not need a title to earn the respect of their team
Expecting results from what you know as opposed to what you do. A strong leader is knowledgeable, but wisdom comes with knowing their results is due to what they do.
In addition, there seems to be a fear in the Non-Profit field of creating more leaders, and not fully buying into the concept that great leaders create more leaders. Power struggles only occur if the top leadership is not stable and strong. Coupled with this is the challenge of delegating – many “leaders” delegate tasks and responsibility – blame-shifting if something does not work out. An effective leader, creating more leaders, will always be comfortable taking responsibility for the outcomes of their subordinates.
The competition and survival struggle in the Non-Profit field is very demanding – also the operating conditions are not stable. The “marketplace” of the Non-Profit field has changed considerably and will continue to do so. The lack of Non-Profit leaders means that Organisations fail to take cognisance of these facts - this is, and has been, catastrophic for many Non-Profit. The lack of leaders, or incompetent leaders in the Non-Profit field, implies that many organisations lack mental toughness – doing what comes naturally (as opposed to what is needed) and doing what is easy and popular (as opposed to what is difficult and unpopular)
The response of many Non-Profits is to expose management members to “leadership” programs – however many “leadership” programs available to non-Profits are focusing on improvement of technical skills and system development. Ultimately Non-Profits end up with more skilled managers, but still no leader. Non-Profits often try to compensate for the lack of leadership by investing in bureaucracy – more managers, more controlling, more rules.
Comments