Posts Tagged by professional development
|December 31, 2013||Posted by M. P. under Management, Philanthropy, Technology||
Wanted: 2014 trend lists that aren’t just a continuation of what’s happening in late 2013.
— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) December 31, 2013
A perfect tweet to read today. It captures the exact reason why my post on nonprofit trends for 2014 has languished in USB limbo for over 2 weeks: there’s nothing new there.
So, rather than bore us all with a rehash of nonprofit issues and their related buzzwords, I’d rather share a few areas I’ll still be watching in 2014 from the experts who write about them:
Mobile. Yes, again. Again and always. And by now nonprofits should have integrated mobile technology (or at least seriously discussed the logistics of doing so) into their daily operations/service delivery.
Take care of your Boomers. They are still the largest and most varied group of givers. According to Blackbaud, Boomers prioritize local social service organizations and places of worship for their donations and give through multiple channels. Carolyn Appleton sees this group as continuing to lead in their philanthropic roles in2014, including in the area of planned giving. Hint hint, planned giving has seen an increase in mobile activity.
Although not exclusively a nonprofit issue, Hack your (Professional) Lack. Sitting in a few of the sessions at Pittsburgh Podcamp 8, I realized that I had been so busy connecting with potential clients and starting new projects in 2012 – 2013 that I had neglected to keep up with the new apps, products, and basic shortcuts that might make running my own shop easier. I’ll be sure to make the time for my own professional development going forward, absent my go-to responses that it’s “a full-time staff of me, myself and I” *grimace* or “blah, blah, work-family boundarieeees” and every other excuse in the bucket.
What are your predictions for nonprofits in 2014? What lack might you hack this year?
Photo Credit: M. Puzzanchera (Own Work) (CC By-NC-ND 3.0)
|April 29, 2013||Posted by M. P. under Management, Research||
A case study on the return on investment of emotional intelligence on productivity and work environment found a predictive relationship between emotional quotient (EQ) scores and individual performance. Amadori, a European meat supplier, embarked on an initiative with Six Seconds focused on improved management and staff development through an overhaul of the organization’s leadership style. The study showed that managers who scored in the top 25 percent in EQ also scored higher in individual performance (47 percent of the variation could be explained by EQ) and that the sites with high EQ executives also had higher levels of employee engagement. As employee engagement was predictive of performance outcomes including motivation, retention and productivity, the factory sites with managers skilled in emotional intelligence experienced better organizational performance.
The adage claims that leaders are born not made, but the literature on the usefulness of emotional intelligence in business and its inclusion in leadership development materials, plus performance results like those in the study above, illustrate how even “born” leaders must be developed. Good leadership can be taught in the form of theories and tools but – as other bloggers have wondered – whether it can be learned effectively is another matter entirely.
A while ago I observed a project debriefing that was one of the most tense and awkward sessions I had ever experienced. The team delivered a successful end product and yet the tone of the meeting was anything but positive. On the surface, the group assembled appeared to be a healthy, functioning team, but cracks began to show as the session continued with member affect ranging from mildly detached to downright apathetic. The facilitator-coaxed feedback was not acknowledged by those who needed to hear it most, rather much of it was dismissed and those brave enough to allude to issues that could have been handled better were chided as unprofessional. I later heard that several members of that department had left the organization of their own accord.
Was it a low EQ, poor leadership development, or maybe just sheer stubbornness that kept the leader from acknowledging the team that day? A little empathy and a modicum of self-awareness could have gone a long way in healing a fractured team that, despite internal conflicts, had succeeded. In the end it was the organization that really lost – both in talent and in the time spent replacing and training a new team. With all the talk about servant leadership and emotional intelligence, even in nonprofits who consider themselves more people-than-profit-driven, are apologies viewed as surrender? Do we secretly fear that empathy equals “doormat”?
Leadership is tricky. My first foray into it, on the smallest scale in the most benign of conditions, was a spectacular failure. For years after that experience, I successfully evaded any opportunity that even hinted of “leading” outside of my favorite type of project – the one person kind. I was not a leader, I pshawed – nope, never would be either, that mantle was for others far grander, smarter and more charismatic than I. It was a safe little pigeonhole to hunker down in, and I did so for years until circumstances demanded change. My ongoing path from pigeonhole dweller to “follow me” has been a spiral not a steady ascent, and would not have happened without the people I met along the way who were (and still are) exceptional leaders. Some simply made an impression, others became mentors if not outright catalysts for transformation, and at the risk of heading completely into tweeness, I have to admit that I learned more from being a part of their teams than I ever could have hoped for at the time.
Leaders can be made. Or perhaps, as with Dorothy, we had the power all along, we just need the right tools, lessons, and people to help give it shape, focus and flight.
|January 31, 2013||Posted by M. P. under Management, Philanthropy, Research||
“You see, we have not been able to keep a Defense Against the Dark Arts professor for more than a year since I refused the post to Lord Voldemort.” —Albus Dumbledore
Have you ever wondered about that one position in your organization that seems to be a portal of sorts, depositing new faces into the office at a mildly alarming pace? Hmm. Why doesn’t any one person seem to hold it for very long? Why is that the only door in the office without a nameplate? What departmental antics could possible result in these once fresh-faced hires briskly stepping out the door one day never to return, nor be spoken of again?
In the Harry Potter series, a position at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is supposedly cursed by the evil wizard Lord Voldemort after he was passed over for the post. Those who hold it do so only briefly, all leaving (some more permanently than others) by the end of the term year. In J.K. Rowling’s tale, that position is the Defense Against the Dark Arts (DADA) professor. In the nonprofit sector, it’s the development director.
Ok, the comparison may be a bit of a stretch, but surely I am not the first to see the connection? Actually, considering the findings of a study (a joint venture between CompassPoint and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund) that pinpoints some disturbing trends in development comings and goings, there may be more similarities between the DD’s and the DADA’s than not. The report, UnderDeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising, identifies 3 hefty issues around securing and retaining development professionals,
- Turnover. Sadly, a high turnover rate is the rule rather than the exception in development. The average period of time a fundraiser holds a position is 16 months, not too much longer than the tenure of our fictitious DADA instructors. Unlike the professors, however, fundraisers tend to leave for salary and promotion concerns rather than because they are a werewolf or have a cell awaiting them at Azkaban prison. Thank goodness for that.
- Poor credentials or just a bad “fit”. Finding qualified, experienced candidates is not an easy task. Professor Gilderoy Lockhart shamelessly padded his wizardry skills to get the DADA gig (he ended up irreparably wiping out his memory due his lack of expertise – imagine your insurance provider’s response to that claim). A more likely scenario for a nonprofit - your dream development director’s resume of degrees, skills and accomplishments does not translate into similar outcomes at your nonprofit. Where was the disconnect?
- A lack of organization capacity and culture to achieve fundraising goals. The study found that 20% of nonprofits don’t even have a donor database. What? It’s 2013! Even the ill-fated professors had both cultural and systemic supports in place at Hogwarts. If nonprofit executives welcome their new development directors with a tour that ends with the equivalent of “Here is your office, we’ll be expecting your plan tomorrow and a full turnaround by next Tuesday,” well, is anyone surprised at the turnover rate?
Obviously the development director position isn’t really cursed, but it certainly has a set of challenges unique from others in nonprofit management. It may even be the most difficult position for a nonprofit to successfully fill. Why is that and can that reality be changed?
|November 18, 2012||Posted by M. P. under Management, News||
The Women’s College of The University of Denver recently released preview data from the upcoming second edition of the study Benchmarking Women’s Leadership indicating little to no growth of women in senior leadership positions in the United States since the 2009 study. Among sectors included in the release were the government/political arena and nonprofits, both areas which are considered more likely to have an equal gender split, if not more women, in their workforce.
In the government sector, women make up over ¼ of executive leadership positions, while among nonprofits, they account for 21 percent in organizations with annual budgets of over $25 million. Social entrepreneurship appears to be a niche where women-led enterprises are thriving in significant numbers, although women lag behind their male counterparts in the entrepreneurship sector overall. Despite evidence that many female entrepreneurs are excelling at startups, and that 20 percent of the top entrepreneurs of 2011 were women, they receive just 11 percent of available startup capital.
The complete results from the second edition of Benchmarking Women’s Leadership study will be released in spring of 2013.
The gender gap in advancement isn’t exactly news, but in the nonprofit sector, where the majority of the employees are women, why are so few reaching the top tier of management?