“Please, sir, I want some more.”

Do the discrepancies between the Charity Navigator ratings, the GuideStar ratings, and Crutchfield & McLeod Grant’s understanding of a high-impact nonprofit provide yet another example of the subjectivity of evaluating or determining effectiveness? Different metrics or conceptions consider different considerations based upon divergent perspectives. What is your opinion of such dichotomies? Perhaps the focus on effectiveness or impact is a futile effort if different parties reach wholly different conclusions.

Many suggest doing away with these rating systems as they compare the incomparable. [Instead, nonprofit administrators should focus on making practical suggestions to improve their agencies’ effect, rather than participating in the vain effort of hashing out their agencies’ attained level of effectiveness. Many administrators do this, so why fuddle this up by adding the effectiveness debate to the mix? Hmm? It makes you think, doesn’t it? And are we really comfortable with placing effectiveness or impact on a simple spectrum? Is there such thing as complete/perfect effectiveness? And what does two stars or 30% mean? Two stars or 30% of what? Well, I suppose five stars is too much for the human brain to contemplate. I suggest that assessing effectiveness or impact requires too many considerations or perspectives for simplification. ] Coupled with the vast complexity of society and the deeply intertwined nature of social issues (blah blah blah, you’ve heard this before), what is the point in creating a subjective standard by which to compare organizations that resemble each other merely based upon a tax designation? Perhaps the point is to create conventions, or widely accepted and often-arbitrary social standards by which we are coerced to follow (ex. professional attire, many laws, religious and cultural traditions, popular culture, etc.). However, these norms, standards, and conventions often leave something to be desired, namely critical thinking. If we do not think for ourselves, we contribute to the mess and we become suspect perpetuators. We bestow greater authority upon outdated norms. Though it is easier to fall in line, it may not be the right or the best progressive approach. After all, if we are not striving to advance, are we doing anything at all?

So I ask, are these rating systems (e.g. GuideStar and Charity Navigator) truly trustworthy? Statistics reveal their wide adoption rates and broad usage. Nonetheless, are we honestly able to hold these systems (or authors’ suggestions) in such high regard as to warrant our trust? Is there a happy medium between trust and scrutiny? Is it a personal determination? Should we set yet another standard? Is this the best we can do as a whole and individually?

I think everyone needs a higher dosage of thinking. I want to be first in line, as you know I do not like to share.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrgxHvNNUc&feature=related

Are high-impact nonprofit organizations’ “movements” so strong that they can triumph over poor ratings?

In chapter 8 of Forces for Good, several high-impact nonprofits received a poor rating from GuideStar. Despite the low ratings, Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant (2008) noted that these nonprofits tend to not spend too much time worrying about the metrics. Furthermore, the high-impact nonprofits continue to “spend what they need to sustain their impact” (pg203). In other words, Share Our Strength’s two-star rating from GuideStar and Charity Navigator does not deter the organization’s functional operations.

Chapter 8 best examines the strength of high-impact nonprofit organizations. GuideStar and Charity Navigator are trustworthy and widely adopted rating systems. Clearly, low ratings by GuideStar have little to no affect on the high-impact nonprofit organizations. Low rated, high-impact nonprofit organizations like Share Our Strength are still able to have multiple funders, providers, and beneficiaries whom actively participate. Are high-impact nonprofit organizations’ “movements” so strong that they can triumph over poor ratings?

The Unsung Reason Why Sharing Leadership is Important

While Crutchfield and McLeod Grant (2008) provide many reasons why it is important for the top leader within an organization to share the leadership of the organization with others, I think that there is an additional reason for the importance of shared leadership that wasn't highlighted in the text. I think shared leadership is important because it is necessary for more than one person within the organization to have and utilize knowledge about leading the organization. As those of us in PAFF 526: Managing Information and Technology have learned this semester, knowledge management within an organization, and the accessibility of people with knowledge, are important aspects of an organization's success. If more than one person within an organization has the knowledge (and is able to utilize the knowledge) that is necessary to steer the organization, I think that there would be a greater chance that the organization would be effective.

What is the role of NPOs?

While this week’s reading are all about leadership in NPOs, it interested me to think about: “what are the leaders’ perspectives in understanding the role of the NPOs they are governing”?

I recently read an article called “Complexity and Instability: The response of Nongovernmental Organizations to the Recovery of Hurricane Katrina Survivors in a Host Community”, the authors collected and analyzed data about Katrina-specific funding, and focus their findings on two limitations that NPOs have when handling the needs of citizens after a devastating natural disaster: high time and overhead cost, and failure to fully meet beneficiary’s needs. Based on the findings of the Katrina case study, the authors lead a discussion that the system of NPOs was complex and often unstable, and thus “any local social service system is likely to be too fragile to handle the needs of citizens on its own”. Furthermore, the authors think that NGOs “function best as an adjunct to the state and benefit from state oversight, support, and monitoring” (Gajewski et al, p.13, 2010).

Although I would personally doubt whether NPOs function as an “adjunct” to the state, I understand the importance to listen based on my last blog posting. It is interesting to hear from opinions from professionals that are not non-profit concentrated. So while we are talking about leadership in a nonprofit, are we really taking the lead? Or are we just acting as an adjunct to the state?

Edwin Feulner states, "The objective has always been to build an institution that will outlive me. It has been deliberate. I don't claim to be unduly modest or humble, but it is more important that the institution has made its mark" (as cited by Crutchfield & Grant, p. 154). I think this is especially true for the nonprofit sector. The leader of a business who thrives on making money could leave the business or pass away but the affect on the community would not be the same as the loss of a nonprofit. If a business tanks the person who owned it loses their money and the people who purchased their product will go else where. However, if a nonprofit tanks the clients who rely on that organization may have no where else to go to get the service they need. This why, as Crutchfield and Grant point out, sharing leadership within an organization is so important. Organizations should recognize that their leader will not be around forever and that it would really harm the organization if only one person knew the ins and outs of the organization.

While I think the idea of sharing leadership is straight forward, I also think it is important to be reminded of this. When I first started working as a director in PR, prior to going back to school, I had a very hard time delegating work to people because I wanted to make sure the work was done correctly. I also felt that it reflected poorly on me if I was unable to complete all of the work by myself. My boss used to tell me you have too much on your plate, give it to someone else. When I resisted, she would sit down with me and make me show her all my projects and folders and then she would take away some of the files and give them to someone else. At first, I really felt like I was losing control and it scared me. Over time, and more so now, I realized that part of being a good leader is being able to trust the people you work with to do a great job and to know when to delegate work and when to do it yourself. People who feel included in the leadership decisions of the organization and feel trusted are more likely to feel part of the organization and invest their time in the organization. Especially in the nonprofit field, a good leader recognizes that she (or he) will not always lead the organization and with the best interest of the organization in my mind, builds a board and staff who will be able to continue the organization without her.

There is a reason that there is the saying "two heads are better than one."

Leadership Sharing

This week's reading is focusing on leadership sharing. One sentence inspires me most:

He has a unique combination of charismatic yet egoless leadership. He gives power away, rather than hoards it.

The best management is alway "invisible", because you could not feel forced by it and everything gets done smoothly. As far as I see, those small organizations need it more than other, because they have less staff without less work. Every staff has to do more to achievement their goals. I remember one project I am working this semester. It only has 2 full-time employee and 4 part-time employee. Even it is small, but they still lots of work because they are the only organization in Binghamton in relative field. I notice that, the administrator tend to do everything or design everything by himself, and ask others or volunteers to do tiny works based on his instruction. It is very time-consuming. He could spend more time on important things not EVERYTHING. My suggestion for him is "trusting your staffs and just say "go ahead"". Staff would feel being trust and encouraged, which enhance the whole organization's effectiveness.

Do not afraid to share !

In chapter 7 of “Forces for Good” the authors are talking about shared leadership and they are analyzing the shared leadership on top management level.

I believe that shared ( I call it peer leadership) is the key of successful management in non-profit sector. I used to share the leadership as project manager with my assistants, steering committee members, social workers and coordinators. Delegation and knowledge of your staff capacity is the job of the manager. I believe that job of the leader/manager in many case is about effectively organizing resources, linking people, matching activities with people, matching funding with activities and creating equal and trustful, transparent and accountable environment in the team. You may ask what about the conflict of interests and roles' change in the team. I can see some threats if the process is not transparent and there is hidden agenda. As far as trust level is built and the rules are set it is easy to manage. Each type of the leadership will have its challenges but I think while we are choosing the type in non-profit we have also to think about the effectiveness and impact that we create with our leadership strategy. The positive sides of the peer leadership are:
• If you share power you have more responsible and more motivated staff
• You can make bigger impact and do more work and with good quality
• Monitoring is stronger
• And you are insuring internal accountability when each team member is accountable to everyone. Manager is accountable to the assistants, coordinator to the assistants, assistant to manager, manager to steering committee members and so on.

How else the organization can benefit from shared leadership ?