Shared Leadership: A Tool for Innovation, Engagement, and Inclusion
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
5 likes•1,990 views
For years, nonprofit leaders have questioned the utility of traditional models of top-down staff leadership structures. But the growing body of research on alternatives – from co-directorship to distributed leadership to self-organizing teams – has been difficult to sort through. In this highly participatory session, participants will explore emerging models, the research on what works (and what doesn’t), and how capacity builders can help organizations adopt leadership structures that work. As the session exercises build upon the previous ones, participants are asked to attend the full session. Session offered at the 2015 conference of the Alliance for Nonprofit Management by Mike Allison (Michael Allison Consulting), Sean Thomas-Breitfeld (Building Movement Project), and Max Freund (LF Leadership).
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Shared Leadership: A Tool for Innovation, Engagement, and Inclusion
Similar to Shared Leadership: A Tool for Innovation, Engagement, and Inclusion (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (18)
Shared Leadership: A Tool for Innovation, Engagement, and Inclusion
- 1. Shared Leadership A Tool For Innovation, Engagement and Inclusion Max Freund LF Leadership Sean Thomas-Breitfeld Building Movement Project Mike Allison Michael Allison Consulting
- 2. Agenda 2 1. Welcome & introductions 2. Checking in 3. Definitions & academic theory 4. Theory into practice 5. Success factors & capacities 6. Making it real: Open Space peer coaching
- 3. Introductions 3 Who are you? Where are you from? What is your prior experience with shared leadership? (If any) What is the single biggest question you have?
- 4. What do we mean by shared leadership? Definitions, Dimensions, and Key Research Findings Max Freund LF Leadership
- 6. Defining Shared Leadership 6 “A simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence process involving the serial emergence of official as well as unofficial leaders” (Pearce & Conger, 2003)
- 7. Dimensions of shared leadership 7 Distribution: (De)centralization of leadership influence Role multiplexity: How many hats people wear Time: Stepping up (and back) as situations require Contractor, et al. (2012) Who What When
- 9. Mapping the literature 9 Supportive Factors • Shared purpose • Norms/culture • Social support • Voice • Trust • “Vertical” leader coaching • Psychological empowerment Outcomes • Trust • Cohesion • Lower conflict • Agreement • Innovation • Satisfaction • Performance Processes • Info sharing • Transactive memory (KWKW) • Shared mental models • Collective efficacy Contingencies • Knowledge-based work • Complex task • Interdependent team • Emergent leader prototypicality • Homogeneity of age/tenure Shared Leadership
- 12. Shared Leadership in Action Sean Thomas-Breitfeld Building Movement Project
- 13. Why “Alternative” Structures? Generational factors Desire for increased impact and effectiveness Practices of distributing decision- making and leadership are important
- 14. BMP’s Research
- 15. Mapping the Options Varied topography of alternative structures Common foundations for distributed leadership: oHigh Levels of Trust oInvestment in Learning oValues Base oPatience and Time
- 18. Stages of Structuring Leadership Foundation Trust Learning Shared Values Patience Implementation Autonomy Buy- in Info-Sharing Clarity Release Indicators Shared decision- making External Representation New Ideas
- 19. Benefits Power to decide on programs New ideas and innovation More responsibility and responsiveness Diverse external representation Greater impact
- 20. Case 1: Make the Road New York Three Co-Directors at time of the What Works report Leadership structure evolved as result of both growth and values More time for meetings
- 21. Case 2: Building Movement Project
- 22. Shared Leadership Widening the Spectrum of Leadership Two Funded Initiatives Mike Allison Michael Allison Consulting
- 23. Definitions Intelligence Leadership The ability to create something, solve a challenge or address an issue that is of value across communities and groups of people (based on the definition of Intelligence from Howard Gardner’s Frames of Mind). The practice of developing and exercising intelligence in self and developing and supporting the intelligence of others.
- 24. Definitions and Styles of Leadership 24 SIMPLE TECHNICAL DIRECTIVE COMPLEX ADAPTIVE COACH’S STANCE
- 25. Strengthening Organizations Mobilizing Californians 25 Capacity-building initiative funded by 3 foundations: the James Irvine Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Supported a “Leadership Learning Community” (LLC) that included peer exchanges for executive directors and senior staff, regional trainings, and comprehensive convenings. TCC Group, a national management-consulting firm, designed, managed, and facilitated the initiative. Twenty-seven participating organizations annual budgets ranging from $500,000 to $2 million; at least five staff members; eight board members; and one hundred volunteers.
- 26. 26 Variance in who leads what, through which structures, along a spectrum between more authoritarian models, which focus on one leader, and more inclusive models which focus on the leadership of many. Lessons Learned: The Spectrum of Leadership
- 27. Shared Leadership Requires: 27 Adaptability by all leaders, most of the staff Trust Shared Leadership Norm
- 28. Organizational Readiness: Prerequisites 1. Explicit commitment by senior leadership to change 2. Up front investment of time to educate and plan 3. Fundamental management practices in place 4. Focus on engagement and accountability and learning 5. Identification of and agreement on shared values 28
- 29. Potential Points of Entry Mindsets Attention to organizational values, culture and relationships – paying attention to the what Behaviors & Processes Attention to domains such as communication and decision-making – paying attention to the how Structures & Strategies Organizational restructuring – breaking out of what has been 29
- 30. Important Considerations… 30 Dimensions of inclusion & diversity Leadership teams Connection (and disconnection) with influencing bodies Coherence/alignment Responsibility of leadership
- 31. Haas, Jr. Fund Flexible Leadership Awards 31 Substantial leadership development support ($35,000 to $175,000) more than 45 Haas, Jr. Fund grantees three to five years implementing solutions to the leadership challenges and opportunities they face. While participating in the FLA, grantees all continue to receive separate program or general operating support grants Activities supported by the Fund’s FLA investments executive coaching strategic planning training for executives and senior teams board development fund development and communications planning
- 32. Flexible Leadership Awards 32 Independent five-year evaluation of the first cohort of FLA organizations found that 13 of 14 met or surpassed the leadership and mission goals they set at the start of the program. 13 of the 14 organizations grew their budgets an average of 64 percent between 2005 and 2010, for a total $19 million portfolio-wide increase, despite the economic downturn in 2008
- 33. Flexible Leadership Awards 33 Shared leadership played a role implicitly or explicitly in most participating organizations Executive Coaching for CEO and Senior Managers Senior team development Leadership training for Program Managers General team building, focused on engaging staff at different levels, building trust and potential for adaptability
- 34. Questions to Consider What are other successful ways to develop and sustain the capacity to flex and share leadership? How can leadership capacity be extended beyond staff to the board, to constituents and to allies? How can shared leadership within individual organizations support and enhance field / movement building strategies? What are the implications for philanthropy and capacity builders in supporting shared leadership in organizations and their constituencies? 34
- 36. Making it Real Open Space and Organizational Scenarios
- 37. Open Space Agenda Purpose: Deepen exploration of shared leadership, apply and extend research through peer coaching. Organizational Scenarios: create framework, spark thinking, apply research Pitch Cases for Coaching: tell us what issue org. is trying to address; form of shared leadership (if any) Peer Coaching: dig into cases
- 38. Scenario 1: Leadership Transition Background: Community-based org.; address community / domestic violence Founder wants to retire Next generation of managers don’t want to take on ED role Readiness Issues: Some competition in the past between managers over strategy, program funding / allocation, and taking credit for wins Board AND funders/donors primarily identify org. with founder Key Questions: Should the organization take on a co- directorship model? What would it take to prepare them for that transition?
- 39. Scenario 2: Spreading Leadership to Clients Background: Emergency Food Provider Foundation program officer raised concerns about lack of client involvement / voice Readiness Issues: Organization has support for the initiative, but not raised idea with orgs. client base Leadership team is split on support Limited client feedback loops Key Questions: How could the organization support greater leadership by clients? How would the organization need to change its practices and ways of relating to clients?
- 40. Pitch Cases Three Minutes to Describe: Relevant Background Preliminary Readiness Assessment Key Questions facing the Organization and/or Capacity Builder
- 41. Modified Open Space Law of Mobility Whoever Comes are the Right People Whatever Happens in 30 Minutes is the Only Thing that Could Have Happened
- 42. Peer Coaching Questions Describe issue to address (2-3 min.) How do you see the research themes showing up in this situation? What might be the intentions and feelings driving these questions about leadership structure? Clarify desired outcomes (5-10 min.) How would changing the leadership structure support success for the organization? What research-based principles can you apply? Identify potential solutions (5-10 min.) How ready is the org. for an alternative leadership structure? What model or approach seems like the best fit? How does the theory and research inform the possible approaches? Initial action steps (2-3 min.) Can you chunk out the transition / implementation over time? What are the first action steps?
- 43. Recap & Next Steps
- 44. Next steps 44 What burning capacity-building questions still remain that warrant further exploration through research to advance the field? Is there interest in a continuing community of practice or affinity group? Please complete your session evaluation!
- 45. Thank you! Let’s continue the conversation… Max Freund LF Leadership max@LFLeadership.com Sean Thomas-Breitfeld Building Movement Project SThomas-Breitfeld@demos.org Mike Allison Michael Allison Consulting Mike@maconsulting.org
Editor's Notes
- In pairs
- Shared leadership and related concepts go by many terms, but the common element is that they all go beyond heroic, positional, managerial perspectives of leadership. Cites: Shared: Pearce & Conger (but as far back as Mark Parker Follett in 1924 and Gibb 1954) Distributed: Gronn (1999; 2002) Co-leadership: Heenan & Bennis (1999) Emergent: Beck (1981) Relational: Uhl-Bien (2006) Complexity: Uhl-Bien & Marion (2008) Collective: Denis et al (2001)
- Generational Factors Gen X and Millennials were looking for new leadership structures and practices of organizations. And data had even shown that Gen Xers couldn’t see themselve becoming an ED, given the time involved and their desire for greater work / life balance. Xers have brought a different vision for work/life balance that contrasts with traditional model of single heroic leader of organization. Think it’s important to bring a critical structural analysis to this because it sometimes was misinterpreted as less commitment to the work than boomer founders, but Reality is that my generation’s looking towards a longer work trajectory and what it will take to not only remain in work for the duration of their careers … Also, the cost of living is higher now, people have more student debt, and GenXers trying to figure out how to buy a house, raise a family, etc., how can this work when margins are so tight, and so much financial insecurity compared to increasing consolidation of wealth Millenials also had cultural conflict with top-down hierarchical leadership often related to shifts in schooling and parenting: Like and are used to working in groups and taking credit together … team assignments at school were supposed to prepare us for the work environment, but some organizations don’t feel much like teams or places for collaboration Also worth noting that millennials are very diverse generation, and top-down work environments can feel especially stifling when factors of race and gender are overlayed with structural tensions. So as we tried to respond to questions – especially from younger workers in the sector – about alternatives, we were interested in why organizations tried “alternative structures” … and overwhelmingly, leaders said they were just trying to be more impactful and effective We paid special attention to organizations with more than 10 staff members in order to find models that worked at larger scales – the good news for smaller organizations is that although there are often fewer resources, there is usually more work to go around, and often fewer consequences if an idea doesn’t work out. Why organizations decide to do this: Overall, distributed practices require more time and effort, but all the folks we talked to felt they were more impactful and effective this way. In other words, they don’t see themselves as “alternative” – rather, they are responding to a need or fixing a problem that traditional structures were causing. But we also heard that it’s not just about setting up a new structure – obviously shared leadership structures require care and feeding through practices that I’ll talk about a little later.
- Background on What Works Partnered with Idealist … Set out to identify organizational practices in nonprofits that: Create a positive workplace; Build leadership; and Respect the skills and contributions of employees; and Facilitate employees’ best work We created an online survey, that got just under 1,000 respondents … survey asked 2 main questions: What allows you to do your best work? What makes up a good workplace? FOCUS GROUPS: Data collected from the survey was supplemented by focus groups conducted in Detroit, Washington, DC, and New York City. Nearly 40 participants discussed factors that contributed to their best work, as well as barriers and strategies for bringing those factors into their workplaces. Their responses added depth and detailed examples to the information we collected through the survey. Findings pointed to shared leadership structures as important for supporting opportunities for growth and developing leaders: In many cases, an organization’s leadership structure can be seen as barrier to growth / advancement. Especially for small organizations, altering the way decision-making and responsibility was distributed could provide significant opportunities for leadership development – and by extension, retention. One of the specific recommendations was for organizations to try out distributed leadership, co-directorships, and intergenerational leadership teams. Background on Structuring Leadership PROTOCOL: To find other nonprofit examples, we developed an interview protocol that we vetted with leadership development consultants and others working with nonprofit organizations. ONLINE SURVEY: Based on their responses and insights, we conducted an online survey that was completed by 112 organizations of varying size across the country. The survey focused on organizational decision making as a way to identify “alternative structures”. INTERVIEWS: small group of organizations that were identified as having different structures. The interviews concentrated on decision-making practices, the role of leadership, and organizational structure, paying special attention to issues of age, race, gender, and class. These interviews, usually with one of the organization’s key leaders, focused on how major decisions were made; the role of non-executive leadership, including independent goal-setting and control over work, budget, and program decisions CASE STUDIES: 3 orgs
- Through the What Works survey and interviews, we identified a “typography of different decision-making structures” Trust: Everyone interviewed brought up the issue of trust … it came up in two ways: both as prerequisite for distributing leadership AND as a result of operating that way … virtuous cycle Investment in Learning: Interviewes pointed to the importance of investing resources in the learning and evelopment of ALL staff, to help them make informed decisions individually and to contribute to shared decision-making … One director said “decision-makers need a high degree of information” … shared leadership requires sharing information and learning and communicating more … so it’s not always the faster option but it is often the smarter one Values: the groups interviewed value sharing diverse ideas and opinions and were often groups fighting for their constituents to have more voice in public systems, so those values led them to look for structures that reflected their values in the structure of their organizations Time: any organizational change takes time to sink in, especially at level of structure … so organizations had to build in time and processes that could last several months to see the new structure take hold.
- Importance of shared LANGUAGE Shared leadership describes a model in which the top level of executive leadership is shared internally by two or more people (for example, a co-directorship). Distributed leadership is a model in which there is one person in the executive role, but decision-making is consistently and methodically pushed down to other levels in the organization (for example, strong program directors).
- Importance of shared LANGUAGE Shared leadership describes a model in which the top level of executive leadership is shared internally by two or more people (for example, a co-directorship). Distributed leadership is a model in which there is one person in the executive role, but decision-making is consistently and methodically pushed down to other levels in the organization (for example, strong program directors).
- You’ll notice that the traits we just discussed are ultimately the indicators you want to look for when implementing distributed leadership practices IMPLEMENTATION Participation of staff and board in the process was essential to creating the models that emerged, rather than changes being imposed inorganically. Ultimately, you want to: (simple, right?) ;) Embrace Autonomy Buy-in from staff Share Information Clarify roles Limit Control Embrace autonomy: Not an input model, but a decision-making practice that empowers staff to act independently. Decrease “bureaucracy,” including the board - actively involved in oversight and thought partnership, but trusted the staff to make the right decisions when it came to program and fund development. Buy-in from staff: Key to successful operation and impact. The models that took the strongest hold were those that were supported across the board and not implemented from the top-down. In other words, while it is important for the executive director to let-go of some of his or her power, it is not enough to make that decision and implement it. Share information: As I mentioned earlier, decision-makers need a high level of information, and that takes time to share. All of our respondents struggled with finding efficient and thorough ways of sharing information that did not always involve face-to-face meetings. Several organizations noted that in order to share more information, staff needed to build their communication skills. Part of building up capacity - One interviewee noted, “This process helped people to find their voice, build rapport and make more informed decisions.” Clarify roles: Defining clearly what people are responsible for helps to insure that things get done and there is accountability for the work. Helps creates the structures needed to implement work and create impact. Control only what we need to control: This was a very important trend: to truly embrace autonomy, the executive director or executive leadership chooses not to execute their full operational control as entitled to them by their position. In other words, they could step in and make decisions about certain organizational policies or practices (i.e. health care, program decisions, budget allocations), but consciously opt not to because they believe that they have better results and more impact by letting go.
- COMMON TRAITS/INDICATORS Power to decide on programs, including raising funds: I mentioned this earlier when I talked about values being an important foundation for implementing these practices. Overall, there are simply more decisions made by people other than the CEO/executive director. We were surprised by this finding, but even when we went back, groups reaffirmed it. With the elements in place that I mentioned before (e.g. well-defined roles, internal information-sharing, communication, and trust) fundraising and budgetary discretion can be highly distributed. New ideas and innovation: One of the most immediate effects of implementing distributive models has been greater innovation and spreading of new ideas throughout the organization. This is one of the more intuitive results. The more people who can share ideas (i.e. front-line folks), the more ideas you have to sift through, and especially those that are based in new trends and patterns More responsibility and responsiveness: All levels could see the tangible results of taking more responsibility not only externally but also internally. As the case studies point out, many groups turned to staff committees or program directors to determine internal policies and how to pay for them. These might include retirement saving accounts, health insurance, appropriate work hours and flex time, and so on. As a result, there was more ownership in the decision and the results. Increased and diverse external representation: This again requires strong values and internal communications that staff can use when evaluating decisions. One organizational head told us that the by not centralizing communications, the programs in his organization were mentioned more times than any comparable organization in his region. He attributed this to his not having to control the messaging. Greater impact: The most important indicator for respondents is having greater impact in their work such as growing programs, maintaining talent, raising more funds, addressing new issues, or creating new partnerships to scale their work. However, one executive director expressed surprise that the organization’s distributive model of leadership – which had clearly been effective – was barely recognized by colleagues in the field or funders.
- At the time of the What Works report, MTRNY had three co-directors, as well as two deputy directors. That structure was due to a merger between an organization that already had two co-directors and another org with one ED. In four years since the report was written the three co-directors have all left the organization to adapt the organization’s model and build a national organizing network called the Center for Popular Democracy, which also has three co-directors Now Make the Road still has two co-directors. Organization does combination of community organizing, direct legal and educational services, and citywide advocacy for policy change focused on rights and full inclusion for NYC’s immigrant communities … When asked about the evolution of their structure, they said it was about growth – three co-directors had responsibility for distinct areas of work, in order to effectively manage $8million budget and 108 staff – but also about “engaging more folks in leadership, which connects them in a more powerful way to the organization. So in the end, they’re more effective.” Surprising finding that their efforts to ensure staff involvement at all levels had added to sense of burnout … keeping everyone informed means having a lot of meetings … but they felt that it was important “the cost of not meeting can be that people do not have the information they need to make good decisions”
- Many different names, modifiers with subtle and mark-ed differences. Shared Leadership is: - deeper diffusion of authority and responsibility into the organization. the capacity that organizations need to solve the complex or “adaptive” problems they face today. Shared leadership can look like: Developing staff as leaders at all levels of the organization Increase in staff involvement in decision making Clear and effective accountability structures Intentionally creating the structure and culture needed to share leadership What’s possible: -Doing more effective work -Greater impact -Higher staff engagement -Less burnout -Better prepared for succession
- Shared leadership is a stance Shared leadership – multiple people must have capacity to lead from organizational/network perspective. Building Movement Project: Shared leadership describes a model in which the top level of executive leadership is shared internally by two or more people (for example, a co-directorship). Distributed leadership is a model in which there is one person in the executive role, but decision-making is consistently and methodically pushed down to other levels in the organization (for example, strong program directors). Organizations that exhibit shared leadership have: Adaptability within the Spectrum: Different tactics and tools for different scenarios, and the ability to know what to use and when An orientation toward shared leadership Staff willing to see the big picture and an invitation for staff to assume greater responsibility and influence A culture of trust First step takes a leap of faith. Will I be punished for taking risks? Will my staff follow through? What happens if I fail at something? Aligning values, clarifying accountability, explicitly supporting experimentation, and clear communication.
- -Explicit commitment by senior leadership to change “champion” support -Willingness to visit all development domains hearts & minds, structures & strategies, behaviors & processes. -Up front investment of time to educate and plan Most likely reduces efficiencies in the short term; long term focus on continuous improvement -Fundamental management practices are in place Basics around supervision, effective communication and decision making, clear strategy, sound financial management systems, and ongoing planning mechanisms -Engagement and accountability Explicit leadership responsibilities and development opportunities
- Places that a consulting engagement can enter from as well as places where organizations are also originating in their thinking about and approach to shared leadership. A transformation in mindset and role – creating a culture of engagement and accountability, building own leadership skills, and bringing them to the staff. Helping staff look at their organizations holistically. Organizational restructuring – co-director models, expanding management or leadership teams, redefining staff positions and roles, developing shared metrics of success for teams Changes in communication and in decision making processes – shifts in management, communication and decision making need to be revisited. Introduction of peer coaching and crucial conversations intentional strategy for how decisions will be made, as well as flexibility and acceptance of emerging priorities (if you ask people for their help and ideas and don’t use them, you will loose supporters) Changing organizational culture and relationships – Focus on organization shared values, developing mutual respect, trust, and accountability through intensive and deliberative processes. What’s most important is that it’s not just one thing, like a restructuring, and then stop. This can wind up doing damage.
- These are a start. Might want more or different learnings named here for us to say a few more words about….
- Answer Questions That Have Been Coming In or Questions from Host.
- Answer Questions That Have Been Coming In or Questions from Host.
- Background: Scenario of a domestic violence prevention program in community of color that has expanded in last decade to focus on broader issues of violence in the community and event taken on issues of police misconduct and police-involved shooting death of a teenager Org provides mix of services, advocacy and organizing in community and is very well respected and established Founder is woman of color and DV survivor, inspiring community elder, well-respected by local electeds, donors and media Succeeded in developing a bench of program managers on: Legal Support, Community Outreach and Education, Counseling Services, leadership development and organizing. Also has strong admin. director who supports fundraising and donor outreach, but most foundation/donor relationships are still held by founder. Three program managers – admin, counseling services and community outreach / education – are from local community and came up through having first been clients. Two program managers – legal and organizing – are more traditional nonprofit staff with track record of work in other states. Organization wants to try to establish co-directorship: Founder wants one of the managers who is from the community (likely the counseling manager who is a woman of color with compelling personal story of survival, working her way through school to get msw, etc.) and one of the managers who is from out of state (likely the legal manager who is a white man and helped raise org. profile at state capitol). Both managers work well together and believe they could lead the organization, but have had tensions in past over strategy and alliances with other organizations and city agencies Readiness issues: Organizing manager (woman of color, millennial, ambitious and two years prior turned down job from larger coalition that tried to poach her) also wants to be in running for co-directorship, but founder thinks she’s too green … however, her work has secured important general support funding, whereas majority of funding for counseling and legal programs is from government sources or has many restrictions on use Admin. manager does not want more responsibility than she currently has … ready to support any successor Community outreach / education manager has built model program in schools and churches on violence prevention that has consistent funding and is largely self-sufficient; not always interested in the larger organizational strategy and points of alignment with organizing, counseling and legal programs Organization has pretty weak board of directors – they don’t raise much money … half of board are former clients and half are influential in local business / community circles … Organization’s donors and foundation supporters have primarily interacted with the founder and invested in her vision
- Background: Scenario of an organization that provides meals and groceries to local community in need Strong Executive Director and recently formed strong leadership team consisting of: Fundraising Director, Community Outreach and Advocacy Director; Director of Social Services. Organization wants to try to establish a community advisory committee: Looked at model of government-mandated consumer advisory boards in mental health field and wants to adapt for their organization Readiness issues: Community outreach and advocacy director sees this as her pet project and she’s very excited; Director of social services is less enthusiastic and wonders what impact client board would have on decisions about programming, especially due to very tight budgets and continually increasing demand for services. The organization’s board is mostly business leaders and people with wealth who primarily focus on fundraising … trust programming to the staff, so they have endorsed the idea of a client advisory group, but did have questions about whether board authority would be impacted by new body Organization recently did their first survey of clients in mode of consumer satisfaction / feedback; Overall the feedback was positive about existing programs, but the results of open ended suggestions were mixed … some ideas from clients could have been expensive to implement (like creating a client choice pantry where people select items they want instead of getting pre-packaged bags of groceries based on family size) … other ideas were cost neutral (like serving meals family style instead of having people line up). No decisions about program changes have been made based on the survey.