Leadership In Nonprofits

A few weeks ago, a friend who had just joined a donor organisation asked what advice I would give someone starting out in philanthropy. I hesitated. It is a peculiar ecosystem, full of well-meaning people, careful language, and meetings that manage to sound both urgent and abstract at the same time. I told her I did not have real advice, only impressions. Philanthropy can be generous but also self-reinforcing. It funds change but is rarely willing to change itself. The further one sits from the problem, the easier it becomes to mistake confidence for competence. The job rewards eloquence and analysis, although what the work often needs are patience, humility, and the ability to sit with not knowing. Those qualities rarely make it onto a performance review. Then, just some days ago, she wrote again. She said she had started to notice how easily sincerity becomes performance, how curiosity turns into certainty, and how the language of care often comes wrapped in the comfort of control. She also admitted that she felt emotionally drained, expected to care deeply but only within acceptable limits. I told her that this is one of philanthropy’s quiet paradoxes. It preaches empathy yet trains distance. It funds transformation yet fears unpredictability. Over time, people learn to sound principled while staying safe, to manage emotion while avoiding vulnerability, and to use "learning" as a verb that requires no change. I still do not have clear answers, and maybe that is the point. Philanthropy's real challenge is not only what it funds but also what it teaches its people to value. It decides whose knowledge counts, which risks are tolerable, and how far courage can go before it becomes inconvenient. The best people I know in this field resist that drift. They stay human in small, unglamorous ways, by listening longer, by admitting uncertainty, and by refusing to turn empathy into a line item. In a system built on confidence, doubt might just be the most honest form of care.

What happens when the rigour of the Treasury meets the passion of the third sector? You get a revolution in how we think about doing good. Imagine leaving a role advising the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and the UK Treasury. The very heart of data driven, evidence led policy in the UK. This was Dan Corry’s world. He chose to leave it for the charitable sector. There, he saw a fundamental disconnect. A sector fuelled by immense goodwill and passion, but often navigating without a clear map. Good intentions were everywhere, but hard evidence of what truly worked was scarce. He recognised that without the discipline to measure impact, well meaning funds could be wasted and opportunities to create real change missed. At New Philanthropy Capital, he applied the very rigour he had honed in the civil service. It was an effort to bring structure and focus to the sector’s passion. His journey provides a powerful blueprint for transformation: → Evidence must guide passion. He championed the idea that emotional connection to a cause should be paired with cold, hard data on its effectiveness. → Philanthropy is an investment, not just a donation. Every pound should be treated as capital deployed to achieve the highest possible social return. → Measuring social impact is non-negotiable. He made it clear that to truly help, you must first be able to prove you are helping. Dan Corry didn’t just lead a non profit, he imported a mindset that helped make the entire charitable sector more effective. It’s a powerful lesson in how transplanting discipline from one world can revolutionise another. In your sector, what discipline from another field could be a game changer? #Leadership #SocialImpact #Philanthropy

Dear philanthropists, you need to start funding core operations in nonprofits. One of the most problematic things I’ve heard in the philanthropic space is that “no donor will want to fund operations.” Ugh. This gives me the ick. It should not be something we ask nonprofit leaders to work around. It should be a funding criterion that philanthropists actively CHANGE t to serve what activists and nonprofit teams truly need. Operations (from organizational development, HR and finance, to strategy planning, communication and fundraising) ARE the backbone of how social justice is literally PUT IN ACTION. Refusing to fund operations is extremely anti-feminist and perpetuates power imbalances. It reminds me of a system that still refuses to see domestic or caregiving labor as labor that should be paid. Domestic and caregiving (informal and formal) professionals, much like operation professionals (often women!!) remain invisible, often thankless, and terribly undervalued, but they are essential for the wellbeing, sustainability and flourishing of communities and organizations they serve. Would it sound okay if a philanthropist who also supports feminist or social justice causes claimed that domestic or caregiving labor is unworthy of fair monetary remuneration? If you, too, believe that the answer is no, well, it’s time to be louder about funding nonprofit operations! The truth is that without operations, no program nor activism can develop sustainably and scale in the long term. Operational capacity is foundational in social justice efforts and, therefore, a real feminist issue.   People with money privilege who want to do good need to get on board with this and support it, and stop letting the ego get in the way of their funding agendas (apparently, funding operations does not sound “cool” or “prestigious” enough in the philanthropy bubble…). The truth is that when philanthropy fails to invest in nonprofits' impact engines, it undermines the core impact that leaders and activists are trying to achieve. Philanthropists, if you want to truly serve communities and do your part in contributing to systemic change, this is your opportunity to put the money where the real needs of frontline leaders and activists are.

Common question: "I want to be on a board. Do I need a special resume?" Short answer: YES There is no one-size-fits-all guideline for board documents. - Board resumes are typically limited to 2-pages - They highlight an area of expertise & the role you'd play on the board - Less focus on talent management/ more emphasis on strategy 1. When writing, consider your audience. Is it a corporate or non profit? This may sound obvious, but corporate boards & nonprofit boards have different purposes. 2. Corporate boards are often looking for SUBJECT MATTER expertise when recruiting new members. Examples of highly sought-after experiences include: - cyber security - leadership succession planning - global market entry - ESG innovation - Digital transformation - Financial acumen/ audit Nonprofit boards are looking for highly engaged individuals who possess the 4 C's: - capacity (financial & time) - calling to the cause - connections/ influence - competence/business acumen 3. Corporate board positions are often filled by "who you know." A client of mine, a leader in digital transformation, regularly gets asked by industry peers for his expertise. ** He's well-networked & highly visible** Organizational consulting firms like Korn Ferry & Egon Zehnder have dedicated board recruitment teams. Nonprofit board recruitment is often done by the executive director in conjunction with the fundraising team. Larger local & regional boards (like United Way) often look to have leadership representation from the area's largest employers. Speaking from experience, sometimes board seats are given out to people who raise their hands. Some nonprofits are starved for engagement. 4. Boards are looking to diversify. According to a New York Times article by Peter Eavis, "Directors who are Black, Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, or from another nonwhite ethnic group now occupy 4,500 board seats among companies in the Russell 3000 stock index, 25% more than they did at the end of 2020 & nearly 50% more than at the end of 2019." Women of all races have also made gains now accounting for 28% of all directors. 5. Not all board seats pay. The vast majority of people who serve on a nonprofit board of directors are u͟n͟p͟a͟i͟d͟. These charities also often have minimum giving requirements. Exceptions include government-nominated "board of trustees" or local utility boards. For example, the average employee salary for the Governor-appointed Board of Regents of The University System of Georgia in 2020 was $75,358 plus state health benefits. Corporate board seats, on the other hand, can be VERY lucrative. According to research firm MyLogIQ, the average S&P 500 BofD costs their companies $3.3 million in compensation, with the average per-board member pay hitting nearly $325,000 in the fiscal year 2020. 6. Board bios are different than standard corporate bios. Briefcase Coach: Executive Resume Writing, Job Search Strategies and Interview Coaching #boardofdirectors

In my first leadership role, I never left work before 9:00 p.m. I used to carry a list of the things I needed at the drugstore, but never made it because the drugstore closed before I left work. One day, a mentor visited me at the education nonprofit I was running at the time. I showed her the list and joked about never making it to the store. She asked me why I wasn’t leaving work earlier and I said, “Well, there's so much to do, and my staff likes to stay late, so I have to stay late.” She pushed back: “Jen, you have to go home so they can go home.” She was right. I needed to model how we prioritize our time. Her advice to me: make a Mission To-do List. Here’s how it works: 1️⃣ Put your mission across the top of a piece of paper and your to-do list down the side 2️⃣ Go through every item to see how much it actually drives the mission or not 3️⃣ Remove any items that are not critical to achieve your mission (or at least move them to the bottom of the list) The exercise inspired me to slim down both my own to-do this and the list for our team. Suddenly, the t-shirts for our summer field trip didn’t seem so important, especially in comparison to finalizing the Algebra curriculum. We focused on the things that mattered and removed or reprioritized the rest. The mission-based to-do list is a powerful exercise that I’ve used with every team since. At Rising Team, we call it BGF, which stands for “Boat Go Faster.” It's based on a winning British rowing team that asked themselves the same question about every addition to their regimen before the Olympics—”Will it make the boat go faster?” In my experience, focusing our to-do list doesn't diminish our productivity. If we do the more important things first, there's often still time to get to extra pet projects. What a mission-based to-do list does is protect our time and energy for the things that matter most—our mission and our team's well-being. 📃 Tell me: Is there anything you can take off your to-do list today? 👇🏼 #leadership #teamdevelopment #prioritization —- Like this post? Follow me for more insights on leadership, team building, and the future of work. Subscribe to my LinkedIn newsletter Leadership is Everywhere: https://lnkd.in/g_VETsRY

Great questions asked by participants in my training course: In NFP's the Board is usually selected from a core of mission committed people but maybe not Compliance/Risk professionals. How do we help them without embarrassing them to grow to meet the skills and needs of a ‘modern director’? This was a great question, because it led to a discussion of what the skills and needs of a ‘modern director’ might be. Obviously, governance is a prime one! You also need skills relevant to the particular company, its stage of development, client/beneficiary/donor community, etc. Then you need courage, curiosity, and care – courage to dare to ask difficult questions like “are we doing the wrong thing?”, curiosity to want to understand why a problem (or just a phenomenon) exists, and care to listen with empathy and respect whilst attending to the necessary details and ensuring that decisions are documented for future reference. Lack of any one or two is not a condemnation that the person will never be a good director. Failure to address the lack is a condemnation that the board will never be a great board. To meet the need without embarrassing the individual, try a performance review that is focused on ‘upskilling’ rather than on ‘scoring’. Make sure it results in director development for the whole board and for every director. I’m still training and developing skills even though my first board appointment was in the 1980s. It shouldn’t be embarrassing for anyone to acknowledge a training need and it won’t be embarrassing if everyone is doing some development work. Of course, that might require a budget. If you say that your board adds value, but you aren’t investing in increasing that value, then you are slowly but surely letting your whole board become out of date and sub-par. Value needs constant work. Not the excuse that “we want to put all our resources into the business activity” or “we can’t justify the expense”. Board value is highly leveraged – every cent you invest in director development should pay dollars of ‘dividends’ through better decisions, clearer purpose, more effective controls and risk management, etc. and help you build a company that is more resilient, robust, and capable of solving the issues it was founded to solve. #boards #directors #training #development

Stop managing. Start building. The traditional non-profit focus on efficiency is a trap. It keeps us small. It breeds burnout. It stifles true impact. We need less "doing more with less." We need more "investing in audacious growth." If your mission is truly urgent, why are we prioritizing cost-cutting over courageous investment? True non-profit leaders do not manage scarcity; they demand abundance. Stop viewing overhead as a necessary evil. View robust infrastructure, competitive salaries, and long-term tech investments as the engine of impact. Challenge the funding model. Don't just ask for project support. Ask for the resources needed to solve the entire problem, not just a sliver of it. Demand multi-year, unrestricted grants. Invest in your people. Burnout is a direct symptom of expecting world-changing results on shoestring budgets. Pay fairly. Prioritize well-being. Scarcity thinking is the biggest hurdle to mission fulfillment. Are we leading our organizations to merely survive, or to truly dominate the challenge we exist to solve? #NonProfit

In today’s “numbers-first” philanthropy, are we unintentionally sidelining the very grassroots energy that has powered India’s most transformative movements? In a compelling op-ed for The Indian Express, Professor Sonalde Desai, Centre Director, NCAER–National Data Innovation Centre and Professor at the University of Maryland, argues that when philanthropy becomes less a leap of faith and more a numbers game, something vital is lost. Key takeaways that stand out: ➡️ The shift from institution-building and selfless service to a technocratic model where scale, outcome monitoring, and sustainability dominate the discourse. ➡️ Evidence from microfinance and randomised evaluations shows how an obsession with clean metrics can exclude the poorest, miss spillover benefits, and distort original goals. ➡️ Bottom-up, participatory programmes like Rajasthan’s Lok Jumbish often struggle to “scale” without losing the deep local ownership that made them successful in the first place. The “California consensus” in philanthropy risks depriving grassroots organisations that “speak from the heart” of both resources and visibility. India’s own history — from Satyagraha and land reforms to dairy cooperatives and the Chipko Movement — reminds us that leaps of faith in civic action have shaped our development journey more than dashboards ever could. As India’s philanthropy ecosystem matures, this is a timely reminder: metrics matter, but they cannot be the only compass. We need room for trust, experimentation, and citizen-led movements that may never neatly fit into a logframe. Highly recommended read for philanthropies, #CSR leaders, nonprofits and policymakers: 🔗 Read here: https://lnkd.in/gr6FckGX

As a seasoned digital transformation leader, you've dedicated your career to guiding organizations through the complexities of technological change. You've honed your skills in strategic planning, change management, and innovation. Now, as you look to the next stage of your career, you may be considering new ways to apply your expertise and make a meaningful impact in other organisations by joining a board. Why Join a Board Joining a board can be a fulfilling way to contribute to an organization while expanding your professional network. It offers the chance to influence strategic decisions and guide companies through their own digital transformations. Your experience in navigating change, understanding technology, and leading teams can be invaluable to organizations seeking to innovate and grow. Assessing Your Fit Before pursuing board positions, assess your skills and experiences. Identify industries where your digital transformation knowledge can make a significant impact. Whether it’s in tech, finance, or healthcare, your insights can help organizations adapt to the digital age. Networking is Key Networking plays a crucial role in securing a board position. Reach out to former colleagues, industry contacts, and professional associations. Attend industry events and seminars to connect with current board members who can offer guidance and potentially recommend you for openings. Prepare Your CV Craft a tailored CV that highlights your leadership roles, strategic contributions, and expertise in digital transformation. Focus on achievements that demonstrate your ability to drive change and deliver results. A well-prepared resume will set you apart from other candidates. Consider Non-Profit Boards If you’re new to board service, consider starting with non-profit organizations. These boards often seek individuals with strong leadership skills and a passion for their mission. Serving on a non-profit board can provide valuable experience and help you build a network in the boardroom. Transitioning to a board role can be a rewarding next step for senior leaders in digital transformation. By leveraging your skills, expanding your network, and preparing effectively, you can make a significant impact while continuing to grow professionally. Embrace this opportunity to contribute to the future of organizations navigating the digital landscape.

You’re on the board of your local nonprofit managing the Executive Director transition. You’ve found a strong candidate. Smart. Steady. Mission-aligned. But they’ve never been an Executive Director before. That gives some board members pause. The question that comes up is, "Can we risk someone learning on the job?" Here’s a better question, "Can we afford to miss a great leader because they need different support?" Every experienced ED had a first. Don't be scared off by that alone. And the support that's most helpful is very much doable. Here’s how to help your first-time ED step in with clarity and confidence: 𝟭. 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿. But not with a handoff document and a few meetings. Narrow the focus. -> What needs to stabilize -> Where the organization could build momentum -> What progress would look like one year from now 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹: Help your new ED prioritize, not just onboard. 𝟮. 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀. New leaders often spend months learning who holds influence, what expectations are unspoken, and where past tensions might still linger. Shorten that learning curve. ->Where trust already exists, and how it was earned -> Which funders are long-term champions, and why -> Who they need to meet before their first public appearance. Context builds confidence. 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹: Build early confidence through shared understanding. 𝟯. 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁. First-time doesn’t mean unqualified. But it does mean they’ll need a partner in the learning process. -> Set regular check-ins focused on learning, not grading -> Establish a clear board contact -> Clarify expectations about communication, decisions, and pace 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹: Reinforce trust and shared responsibility. 𝟰. 𝗔𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱. Your ED needs one unified board, not a few champions and a few skeptics. -> Are you clear on why you chose this candidate? -> Have you addressed hesitations directly, before day one? -> Are you ready to lead 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 them, not just evaluate from a distance? If you’re not aligned, it will show. And your new ED will feel it. 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹: Get to and present a consistent, united board presence from the start. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮 𝗳𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁-𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀, 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁-𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗘𝗗: -> A deep connection to your mission and community (A first-time ED has a steep learning curve. But knowing the community, the mission, and the people is a huge lever for success). -> Is a relationship builder -> Operationally savvy (programs, finances, people, systems) -> A bias toward action and a willingness to ask for help -> Sees the board as a strategic partner -> Big-picture thinking and can set priorities, manage resources, and execute on plans 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹: Hire for character, clarity, and capacity, not just experience. ----- Every leadership transition is risky. Known risk is solvable. Hire for that.