Public Plays Role in How Charities Train Their Managers

To the Editor:

In his letter to the editor, Basil J. Whiting affirmed Chronicle columnist Mark Kramer’s assessment that donors do not evaluate the true state of leadership or management of a nonprofit (“Bias Plays Role in Incompetent Nonprofit Management,” February 22). Mr. Whiting’s observations of leadership and lack of skill development in the sector are profound, but hardly new.

I agree with his experience-based observations that seem to show nonprofit leaders are less inclined to pursue leadership or management-skill development than their for-profit peers, but I am not absolutely certain the reasons are rooted in a “we’re doing the Lord’s work” basis.

Instead, I believe the problem is that charities are answerable to a public that itself separates how nonprofits and for-profits do business.

When more grant and donor dollars are allocated for the development of new programs and services or evaluation of established ones, the message that is heard by these groups is: Dollars for beginning, developing, or evaluating programs are available; funding for hiring, retaining, or developing people within our organization to do that is not.

Charities do understand the importance of developing their organizational capacity, but the public, to whom they are accountable, does not.

The irony here is thunderous. For-profit businesses continue to showcase their efforts to reorganize their internal structures, develop their managerial staff to encourage creativity and innovation in their teams, and construct systems to bring the product to the customer in a quicker, less-expensive, and more-efficient manner. These leaders, not different from nonprofit chief executive officers and board members, understand the importance of such investment and the potential return on that investment.

However, in the nonprofit business, the public must be convinced that such organizational maneuvers are as important to the delivery of their organization’s programs and services as they are for the for-profit companies. This part is not the arguable point, in that it is the public’s dollars that support such development. An organization should be comfortable explaining that such skill development is a necessary part of the package, for not just the standard delivery and development of programs and services, but the innovative and competitive delivery and development of those programs and services.

What is arguable is why the funders, who see daily the implications for poor program management and leadership, still grant funds restricted to developing or evaluating programs. And these tasks, evaluating and developing, do they not call for a certain level of skill, and number of staff, to be performed most effectively and with the best results?

Just recently, The Chronicle reported that the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute reallocated its $130-million donation to “increase the number of faculty, increase the amount of research conducted on campus, and improve students’ academic and social experience.”

The anonymous donor, who originally gave the funds to construct a biotechnology-research center and electronic-media and performing-arts facility, changed his or her mind and placed no restrictions on how the funds are to be used (The Chronicle, March 22). What has the institute done? In effect, the R.P.I. president decided to build the institute’s capacity to realize its mission.

Economic prosperity, or lack thereof, is not always a driver of the frequency of organizational development. In 1987, despite a gloomy national economy, a company called Sequoia Capital learned of a dozen or so people who had gotten together and attacked a market few people knew anything about. As the first investors in that company, they recognized people with ambition, passion, and knowledge, and prudently risked investing in its future. The company? Cisco Systems.

The key words in Mr. Whiting’s article were “interpersonal actions.” These relationship skills lay the foundation for effective, knowledge-based decision-making and operations at every level. The most honed of these abilities allow leaders and managers to guide teams of staff, or board members, through self assessment, policy making, volunteer management, program operation and evaluation, and other organizational responsibilities, with more acumen and fulfillment — for all parties involved.

Members of nonprofit organizations, like their counterparts in the for-profit sector, can and do appreciate the significance of a trustworthy, empowering, and mutually respectful relationship — whether it be with their supervisors, peers, or subordinates. Building those takes investments of time and money. And because of mounting pressures on the staff and governors of nonprofit businesses, both seem to be in increasingly short supply.

Foundations like Robert Sterling Clark, Ford, and McKnight are examples of grant-making institutions supporting nonprofit efforts to develop their skills. What can nonprofit leaders do to help more grant makers understand their role in helping nonprofit groups develop their capacity to deliver better than average, and sustainable, programs and services?

The results of investing in people are significant. This is what our nonprofit leaders, staff, and volunteers do everyday. But who invests in them? Why is it so difficult to invite others to be a part of organizational development when part of that package is potentially more strategic and innovative programs and services?

Tanya Goodwin-Maslach
Principal
Linking Visions Consulting
Kaneohe, Hawaii