I see it in articles from across sectors – non-profit, politics, business… There seems to be a shortage of good leaders willing to step forward and serve. Is it the flattening of the corporate hierarchy, an increased focus on busy time rather than thinking time, unrealistic expectations of leaders or the fishbowl that so many in leadership (particularly our political leaders) are asked to live in? Is that list of assumptions even true?
Regardless of the cause, a recent HBR article suggests that even most leadership development programs aren’t actually developing leaders. Interesting food for thought…
Leadership and Nonprofit News Roundup
Why Leadership Development Isn’t Developing Leaders | Harvard Business Review
Too many business leaders today are out of touch with the employees they lead. Edelman estimates that one in three employees doesn’t trust their employer — despite the fact that billions are spent every year on leadership development. Part of the problem: Our primary method of developing leaders is antithetical to the type of leadership we need. Four factors are essential: making it experiential; influencing participants’ “being,” not just their “doing”; placing it into its wider, systemic context; and enrolling faculty who act less as experts and more as Sherpas.
Why Invest in Leadership Development? | Bullock Consulting Inc.
Leadership is the one business activity you can’t outsource. How do you acquire that skill? In a way, going to school to learn leadership as though it were simply an intellectual skill such as mechanical engineering or marine biology seems absurd. However, you can learn it. You aren’t born with it, but neither were Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or Meg Whitman. The great leaders of the past learned it on their own, through experience. They drew lessons from their failures and successes, and kept moving forward.
Bridging the Nonprofit Leadership Gap | Common Impact Blog
Securing and developing the nonprofit sector’s core talent has been one of the most significant challenges resulting from this lack of investment in core mission support. We invest – if minimally – in program staff, but not in cultivating management and leadership. We are able to attract an increasingly mission-oriented workforce as they graduate into entry level program positions, but we lose them at the 10-15 year mark (or earlier), just as they’re getting ready to take real leadership roles, manage teams, and leverage their experience to scale the models they have helped build. This exodus is directly tied to the broader lack of core organizational investment…
Nonprofit Leaders Have the Power to Create Capacity Funding | Social Velocity
Rather than searching for donors who already express an interest in funding nonprofit capacity (like fundraising staff and systems, program evaluation, technology), it is actually more effective if a nonprofit leader takes it upon herself to create her own capacity funders. But that requires a process, like this…
Serious Fundraisers Take Telemarketing Seriously | The Agitator
Serious fundraisers take telemarketing seriously. They understand its use and potential as an important building block in forming strong donor relationships, offering better donor experiences and learning more about why a donor gives and what she needs and expects from your organization.
Continuous donor choice: fundraising’s best opportunity in ages | 101fundraising
…an easy, clear system of opting-out through giving continuous donor choice is a better, simpler, more efficient and more effective way of offering donors meaningful control of their relationships with the charities they choose to support. It gives donors all the control they need or would wish for, while actually helping rather than damaging fundraising. This article defines that better way and provides a step-by-step guide to its implementation.
Don’t miss a single edition of Kirsten’s Nonprofit Headlines! (Sent by email every other week.) Sign up at: http://bullockconsulting.net/