Leadership in NGO's: is it all that different than the for-profit sector?/Leadership au sein des ONG : est-ce different du secteur a but lucratif?

I worked in the NGO sector for over 30 years. I worked in small organizations with annual budgets under $250,000 and I worked for large organizations with budgets in excess of $17,000,000. I have done work with large American NGO's with annual budgets in excess of $250,000,000. I have worked in social service organizations, health organizations and international service organizations. Over my career I have observed a steady evolution in the NGO sector. NGO's are no longer found to be exclusively in the volunteer sector and you can no longer assume that they are only locally based. You can no longer assume small and you can no longer assume well intentioned at the cost of competency.

Today in Canada there are more than 72,000 registered charities delivering services locally, provincially and nationally. These organizations provide over 350,000 full time jobs as well as over 220,000 part time jobs. Total annual salaries exceed $13 billion dollars. This is a large and growing sector.

Given federal and provincial cutbacks over the past 10-12 years, many NGO's had to evolve or die. Boards of directors were forced to accept the notion that not every agency could be expected to survive. NGO's began to look at the world through a filter that was well known in the for-profit sector. This was a survival of the fittest scenario. In order to survive agencies looked at new ways to do their work. Trends included:

* More collaboration with the for-profit sector;

* More formalized and sophisticated fund raising;

* More focus on the fiscal bottom line;

* More diversity in services, service delivery and staffing;

* Boards of directors looking more closely at organizational leadership

A combination of awareness of board accountability at Enron and some lower profile scandals in leadership in the NGO sector caused boards to begin to look closer at agency leadership. Boards began to look closely at the fiscal bottom line, quality of leadership and strategic planning. The basic question was what sort of leader was needed in today's social, political, and fiscal climate.

Historically, in the NGO sector, leadership had been approached differently than in the for-profit sector. In fact leadership was often defined by what it was not. Leadership was not about the bottom line. It was not about a cutthroat attitude and it was not about growing the business. Many leaders stayed in their positions for 20 or more years. Training was focused on direct service delivery as opposed to administration. Leaders advanced internally through the agencies hierarchy and experience was viewed as equal to or more important than training and credentials. This model worked reasonably well as long as organizations stayed small and were based locally.

But as agencies got bigger, finances got more complex, communities became more sophisticated and lobbying took on more importance, leadership was forced to evolve. Organizations and leaders who were unable to evolve took on a risk in relation to long-term organizational stability.

And what types of leadership skills were essential to long-term organizational stability? You have to understand what the basic leadership skill set was prior to the mid 1980's. Leaders were versed in service delivery skills. As well they were long-term stable loyal employees. Most were empathic and passionate about their work. Most leaders lacked formal graduate level credentials, and lacked specific skills in finance, fund raising, strategic planning, human resources and conflict resolution. The skills they had were learned on the job.

The skill set of newer executive directors has evolved. What remains of the old skill set is empathy and passion. In the NGO world it is important that one leads with heart as well as head. The newer skills include:

* Vision and strategic planning;

* A desire to innovate;

* A willingness to take considered risks;

* The ability to create and sustain growth;

* The ability to delegate and collaborate;

* Excellent communication skills;

* Risk management and crisis intervention skills.

As you can see, these skills would not be out of place in most for-profit organizations. The other big change is that many NGO leaders now look at 3-5 year commitments to an organization. A solid combination of skill, experience, education and drive allow for this type of career path. Once again, this type of career path would not be out of place in the for-profit world.

There is also a trend for today's leaders to be able to move between a variety of worlds. Leaders move in and out of NGO's, for-profit organizations and educational institutions on a regular basis. The skill sets have become inter-changeable in all of these environments.

BB King once said that there were only 2 types of music; good and bad. The same logic applies to leadership. Good leaders can work anywhere while bad leaders cannot.

Bruce Hardy PhD, MA, MEd, Special Guest Columnist

Bruce Hardy PhD, MA, MEd currently works full-time at a BC Community College and runs a private consulting firm.

J'ai travaille dans le secteur des ONG plus de 30 ans. J'ai travaille au sein de petites organisations dont le budget etait inferieur a 250 000 $, ainsi qu'au sein de grandes organisations dont les budgets excedaient 17 000 000 $. J'ai egalement effectue du travail pour de grandes ONG americaines dont les budgets annuels etaient superieurs a 250 000 000 $. J'ai travaille pour des organismes de services sociaux, de sante et des organisations internationales de service. Durant ma carriere, j'ai observe une evolution ininterrompue du secteur des ONG. Les ONG ne se trouvent plus exclusivement dans le secteur du travail benevole et nous ne pouvons plus presumer qu'elles existent uniquement au palier local. Nous ne pouvons plus presumer qu'elles sont de petites tailles et pleines de bonnes intentions aux depens de la competence.

De nos jours au Canada, nous comptons plus de 72 000 organismes de charite enregistres assurant des services aux paliers local, provincial et national. Ces organismes offrent plus de 350 000 emplois a temps plein, ainsi que plus de 220 000 emplois a temps partiel. Au total, les salaires annuels s'elevent a plus de 13 milliards de dollars. Bref, ce secteur est important et en expansion.

Suite aux reductions federales et provinciales des 10 a 12 dernieres annees, bon nombre de ONG ont du evoluer ou disparaitre. Les conseils d'administration ont ete obliges d'admettre que tout organisme n'etait pas necessairement assure de survivre. Les ONG ont commence a percevoir le monde selon les memes regles bien connues du secteur a but lucratif; elles ont ete confrontees au scenario pronant la survie des mieux adaptes. Dans le but de survivre, les organismes ont passe en revue de nouvelles facons d'effectuer leur travail. Les tendances decouvertes sont les suivantes :

* Plus de collaboration avec le secteur a but lucratif;

* Des campagnes de financement plus formalisees et sophistiquees;

* Plus d'attention portee a l'endroit des facteurs fiscaux;

* Une plus grande diversite de services, de prestation des services et de personnel;

* Les conseils d'administration examinent de plus pres le leadership organisationnel.

Une combinaison de l'imputabilite du conseil d'administration chez Enron et de certains scandales moins spectaculaires dans le secteur des ONG ont amene les conseils d'administration a examiner de plus pres le leadership au sein des organismes. Les conseils se sont penches sur les facteurs fiscaux, la qualite du leadership et la planification strategique. La question de fond etait : quel type de leader avons-nous besoin selon le climat social, politique et fiscal actuel?

A travers l'histoire, dans le secteur des ONG, le leadership a ete percu differemment que dans le secteur a but lucratif. En fait, le leadership a frequemment ete defini par ce qu'il n'est pas. Le leadership n'est pas seulement une question de chiffres; il ne s'agit pas d'une attitude defiant toute concurrence et de croissance de l'entreprise. De nombreux leaders ont occupe leurs postes pendant 20 ans et plus. La formation se concentrait sur la prestation directe des services et non l'administration. Les leaders ont gravi a l'interne les echelons hierarchiques des organismes et l'experience etait consideree comme equivalente ou plus importante que la formation et les titres de competence. Ce modele a connu un certain succes aussi longtemps que les organismes demeurerent petits et locaux.

Lorsque les organismes sont devenus plus grands, les finances devinrent plus complexes, les collectivites, plus sophistiquees et le lobbying, plus important. Le leadership a ete oblige d'evoluer. Les organismes et leaders incapables de suivre l'evolution du secteur ont decide d'assumer le risque associe a la stabilite organisationnelle a long terme.

Et quels types de leadership sont essentiels a la stabilite organisationnelle a long terme? Nous devons comprendre quelles etaient les competences de base en matiere de leadership avant 1985. Les leaders etaient chevronnes en prestation des services. Ils etaient, en outre, des employes stables et loyaux depuis de nombreuses annees. La plupart d'entre eux etaient empathiques et passionnes a propos de leur travail. Bon nombre de leaders n'avaient pas obtenu de diplomes formels et ne possedaient pas les competences requises en finance, campagne de souscription, planification strategique, ressources humaines et resolution des conflits. Leurs competences ont ete acquises par le biais de leur travail.