WomensLearningStudio

So many capacity building efforts fail because we do not invest enough in people to carry out these efforts

And any effort to build the capacity of communities of color that does not take staffing into account will fail completely. Many of these orgs do amazing work but don’t have a single full-time staff, so funding anything without strategically funding staffing first will be ineffective.  

Supporting the right people so they are consistently there doing stuff, and then removing barriers that are preventing them from doing stuff and making them want to run screaming from the sector. THEN fund toolkits and workshops and peer learning circles and talk about ecosystems and partnerships, etc. With that in mind, here are 9 recommendations from Capacity Building 9.0:

funders provide small grants to nonprofits of color so they can do things like hire a consultant to facilitate a strategic planning retreat, or to send them to workshops on board development, fundraising, personnel policies, or myriad other capacity building topics.

critical missing element. Staffing.

If we value the voice of our diverse communities, we must build the capacity of organizations led by those communities. But we must do it differently than how we’ve been doing it. We must invest strategically and sufficiently.

Capacity Paradox.

capacity of immigrant/refugee-led nonprofits by providing this critical missing element of staffing.

The gap in leadership among the immigrant/refugee communities will widen further because kids are not entering the nonprofit field. Most immigrant/refugee kids are pressured by their families to go into jobs with higher pay and prestige

peer-learning cohort

plans its next board orientation—and perhaps its success in attracting and retaining a diverse board of directors.

Networks are especially well-suited to using web-based knowledge-sharing and collaboration tools that easily allow network members to upload and download evaluation templates, curricula for educational programs, and other tools. Technology also allows network members to connect in real time even though they are geographically distant, and to facilitate educational programs that take advantage of a combination of online and in-person learning components.

The one-time workshops nonprofit capacity builders relied on in the past don’t make the same deep impression on program participants as longer-term, peer-learning cohorts, which prompt participants to dig deeply into their personal learning journeys and connect mor

32KeyFindings•About26%oftheoverallNTENCommunityconsiderstheirorganizationstobeatthe“Leading”levelontheTechnologyAdoptionSpectrum.Thisisaslightincreasecomparedtolastyear’ssurveyinwhich23%reportedthattheirorganizationswereatthetopendofthespectrum.•Aswe’veseeninpastyears,NTENMemberstendtoratetheirorganization’sapproachtotechnologydecisionshigheralongthespectrum:over82%ofcurrentNTENMembersindicatethattheirorganizationsareatthe“Operating”levelorabove,comparedto59%ofNon-members.•WhileLeadingorganizationsdotendtohavelargerannualoperatingbudgets—aswe’veseeninpreviousyears—wealsocontinuetofindLeadersacrossallbudgetsizes,including20%whocomefromorganizationswithbudgetslessthan$250K.•Weseeasignificantincreaseinthepercentageofrespondentswhoseorganizationshavetechnology-relatedtrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentallocationsintheirbudgets:71%thisyear,comparedto49%previously.•WhilethereisclearcorrelationamongNTENMembersbetweenTechnologyAdoption(TA)levelandhavingtechnology-relatedtrainingbudget–withnearly90%ofLeadingrespondentsindicatingtheyhavetechnology-trainingbudgets–wedon’tseecorrelationbetweenTAandtrainingbudgetsamongNon-members.ThismightsuggestthatthereismorevaluetoNTENMembership,intermsofTAlevel,thantrainingalone.•“Tobepartofthecommunityofnonprofitleaders”istheprimaryreasonrespondentsbecomeMembersofNTEN,followedcloselyby“generalprofessionaldevelopmentandtraining.”•Anewquestiononthisyear’ssurveyasksrespondentsabouttheirkeyprojectsandprioritiesoverthecomingtwelvemonths.Respondentsindicatedtheyweremostlikelytobe“Expandingexistingprogramorservices”inthecomingyear.•The“timeliness”ofNTENresourcesandinformationwasrankedhighestbyrespondentsintermsofNTENMembersatisfaction.•WecontinuetoseeExecutiveDirectors/CEOsasagrowingconstituencyamongtheCommunity,especiallyamongNon-members,andseemoreFundraising/DevelopmentprofessionalsparticipatingintheCommunityasMembersthisyear.•

funding”and“budget”—inotherwords,money—isakeyissueforrespondents.Likelastyear,weseethattheword“integration”appearsfrequently,especiallyamongresponsesbycurrentNTENMembers.ForNon-members,theword“management”showedupoften

struggling:“Wearestruggling;wehaveafailinginfrastructure,andourtechnologytimeandbudgetgenerallygotowardscreatingworkarounds,repairingoldequipment,andduplicatingtasks.”Functioning:“Wekeepthelightson;wehavebasicsystemsinplacetomeetimmediateneeds.Leadershipmakestechnologydecisionsbasedonefficiencies,withlittle-to-noinputfromstaff/consultant.”Operating:“Wekeepup;wehavestableinfrastructureandasetoftechnologypoliciesandpractices.Leadershipmakestechnologydecisionsbasedonstandardlevelsaccordingtoindustry/sectorinformationandgathersinputfromtechnologystaff/consultantbeforemakingfinaldecision.”Leading:“We’reinnovators;werecognizethattechnologyisaninvestmentinourmission,andleadershipintegratestechnologydecisionswithorganizationalstrategy.Technology-responsiblestaffareinvolvedinoverallstrategicplanning

States like California have made funds available to provide connectivity and digital literacy in low-income housing developments.

Rost found that writers on leadership had defined it in more than two hundred ways. Often, they glided between incompatible definitions within the same book: they argued that leaders should be simultaneously decisive and flexible, or visionary and open-minded. The closest they came to a consensus definition of leadership was the idea that it was “good management.” In practice, Rost wrote, “leadership is a word that has come to mean all things to all people.”

“The End of Leadership,” from 2012, Barbara Kellerman, a founding director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership, wrote that “we don’t have much better an idea of how to grow good leaders, or of how to stop or at least slow bad leaders, than we did a hundred or even a thousand years ago.” She points out that, historically, the “trajectory” of leadership has been “about the devolution of power,” from the king to the voters, say, or the boss to the shareholders. In recent years, technological and economic changes like social media and globalization have made leaders less powerful.

Max Weber distinguished between the “charismatic” leadership of traditional societies and the “bureaucratic” leadership on offer in the industrialized world.

Khurana found that many companies passed over good internal candidates for C.E.O. in favor of “messiah” figures with exceptional charisma.

Charismatic C.E.O.s are often famous, and they make good copy;

y the mid-twentieth century

“process-based” approach. T

if you read a detailed, process-oriented account of Jobs’s career (“Becoming Steve Jobs,” by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli, is particularly good), it’s clear that Jobs was a master of the leadership process. Time and time again, he gathered intelligence about the future of technology; surveyed the competition and refined his taste; set goals and assembled teams; tracked projects, intervening into even apparently trivial decisions; and followed through, considering the minute details of marketing and retail. Although Jobs had considerable charisma, his real edge was his thoughtful involvement in every step of an unusually expansive leadership process.

some organizations the candidate pool is heavily filtered: in the military, for example, everyone who aspires to command must jump through the same set of hoops. In Congress, though, you can vault in as a businessperson, or a veteran, or the scion of a political family.

whether times are bad enough to justify gambling on a dark-horse candidate.

Leadership BS

five virtues that are almost universally praised by popular leadership writers—modesty, authenticity, truthfulness, trustworthiness,

and selflessness—and argues that most real-world leaders ignore these virtues. (If anything, they tend to be narcissistic, back-stabbing, self-promoting shape-shifters.) To Pfeffer, the leadership industry is Orwellian.

Reading Samet’s anthology, one sees how starkly perspectival leadership is. From the inside, it often feels like a poorly improvised performance; leading is like starring in a lip-synched music video. The trick is to make it look convincing from the outside. And so the anthology takes pains to show how leaders react to the ambiguities of their roles. In one excerpt, from the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, Samet finds him marching toward an enemy camp. Grant, a newly minted colonel who has never commanded in combat, is terrified: “My heart kept getting higher and higher, until it felt to me as though it was in my throat.” When the camp comes into view, however, it’s deserted—the other commander, Grant surmises, “had been as much afraid of me as I had been of him.” Leaders, he realizes, are imagined to be fearless but aren’t; ideally, one might hide one’s fear while finding in it clues about what the enemy will do.