Conversation about Nonprofit Leadership

Superstar blogger Maddie Grant has posted an interesting introduction to what I hope will be an even more interesting online conversation about leadership. Maddie was not only named association blogger Rookie of the Year for 2007 by BMart, she was also honored by Association Trends as one of the top "Young and Aspiring" association professionals last year. So she challenged the other Trends awardees to weigh in on an article by Jim Collins that talks about nonprofit leaders, and how their skill in "legislative" leadership can be an example for corporate leaders (nonprofit leaders typically do not have the concentrated power that corporate leaders do, which requires "legislative" leadership, rather than "executive" leadership).

So I encourage everyone to read what Maddie wrote, read the article, and check back on the comments on her post to see what people think.

I have a couple of reactions.

First, I must admit that I get a bit annoyed when people get all "excited" that someone like Jim Collins is saying that nonprofit leaders might be able to "teach" corporate leaders instead of the other way around. As if it is the proof we needed to feel good about nonprofit leaders. For me, the dichotomy between the two groups isn't as important as people make it out to be. Yes, the two worlds are very different, but it seems incredibly obvious to me that BOTH worlds have a lot to learn from each other. Both worlds have issues with BOTH executive and legislative leadership. Not all nonprofit leaders are good at legislative leadership, and sometimes they hide behind the legislative leadership mandate when they refuse to make a bold executive decision.

Second, related to Maddie's comment, the whole model still focuses on the top of the organizational chart. It doesn't address what it takes in either world to lead from positions in the middle. Personally I think this is where the most interesting ideas about leadership are going to emerge in the coming years. Part of it is a generational issue--the demographics of so many Boomers and Millennials, but so few Xers, may push the boundaries of traditional hierarchical authority models. I can see this putting more of an emphasis on legislative leadership. But what I really want to explore is what really is the essence of leadership when you are what "traditional" leadership models would call a "follower?" Leadership happens at all levels. Does leading from the middle change when the top becomes more legislative?

Comments

[Virgil Carter]

Excellent points about an always important issue--thanks Jamie. I'll be interested to see what contributions others may make.

Here's two issues that bug me:

1. Successful leadership is less about "style" and much, much more about the specfic situation: Collins and others tend to generalize leadership by talking about particular leadership styles, ie, executive, legislative, yada yada, as if they are platinum, gold and silver bullets to model and master for assured leadership success.

What I observe from years of experience is that it is much more important to understand the situation and apply leadership appropriate for the specific situation. Situations may well call for leadership from the top, middle, bottom or externally! Successful leadership is that which is tailored and fits the situation--not vice versa. Good leaders facilitate the necessary leadership, wherever it may reside. Successful leadership is certainly not about a particular style for Spring and another style for Fall!

2. Why is it that ASAE and some of our association bloggers can't figure out how to align and communicate membership mantras and leadership mantras? For example, when we hear ASAE talk about membership, we often hear incessantly that the membership is why we exist, whom we serve and how we should measure success. We hear that all too often association leadership is "out of synch" or disconnected with membership.

Yet when we hear about leadership, for example, we hear how important it is for leaders to be visionary, strategic, energetic, bold, courageous, making hard decisions that are best for the organization, yada yada.

Come on. Does anyone besides me see the complete mismatch (and conflicting results) these two independent disconnected views of membership and leadership represent? Do we have the membership specialists espousing the membership mantras and the governance specialists promoting the leadership mantras, in some sort of ridiculously competitive song and dance?

When will ASAE & the Center reconcile membership and leadership into one single, integrated and comprehensive continuum? They really aren't separate, stand alone issues, you know?

[Christopher Scott]

I agree with you where you say some of the most interesting ideas come from the middle of an organization.

People in the middle are the ones who are in the trenches day in, day out. They know know what it takes to get things done.

Thanks for sharing. . .