We were discussing last week that there are various historical trends that you can pick up and follow in tracking why leaders move in and out of civil society. This week, we'll be looking at who civil society leaders are, where they come from and what will change about this in the future.
I often think it interesting that other professions and sectors (private sector, sport, politics etc) have role models that people aspire to be like. Every budding entrepreneur wants to be Richard Branson, every footballer Michael Owen etc. Why is it that the sector does not (or cannot) have similar inspirational figures that every kid is talking about in the playground? It may seem slightly trite, but I think that it is a significant symptom at the crux of our problem.
The sector is clearly highly attractive later in life: Acevo have highlighted that 31.2% of the sector’s CEOs came from the private sector and over 50% from various public sector categories. Reasons being mainly ‘making a difference’ ‘interest in a specific job’. Pay cuts are freely accepted by those who make the shift. This suggests that the sector cannot fill its top jobs internally - either because it is impossible to get the right skills in the sector or underinvestment in leadership development.
So, two main questions today:
Who are today's leaders and from where do they emerge?
Will current trends change in the coming years (short, medium and long-term)?
More questions to compliment:
Who are the VCS’ role models and most prolific leaders?
What do we think of the fact that most leaders in VCS organisations have not spent all/much of their working lives in the sector but have more often than not 'parachuted in'?
Do third sector leaders gain or lose because of the career paths that they follow?
Which leaders are currently underrepresented in the sector and civil society? (this could be as much that you think there are too few people who have worked as accountants as you think there are too few women)
Do we really believe that the recent financial turmoil and the way in which it may or may not have struck at what have been core values for a long time will mean that the landscape of leadership will shift? Will the VCS attract any more leaders because of it?
And a reminder of our 3 aims with the inquiry:
What challenges and opportunities will the next generation of VCS/civil society leaders have to deal with?
What is the current state of leadership development in the VCS/civil society?
How can the VCS/civil society prepare and attract its leaders of the future?
Just a point of clarity - maybe it wasn't clearly phrased above, but I agree: I think the rediscovery of UK poverty was precisely something that brought people to the sector (eg, Shelter founded 1966) and away from the state.
A final example, though I'm sure there are many others: It is interesting that the history of Save shows it to have worked on UK child poverty issues since the very early 1920s, just after it was founded. Look at other international NGOs and you find them not working to tackle UK poverty in their early days and only just addressing them recently (Oxfam set up UKPP in 1996), or not at all (Christian Aid and Action Aid - as far as I'm aware). My hypothesis there would be that the state's huge intervention of the mid-twentieth century convinced the founders of INGOs founded at this time that UK issues were being safely dealt with - you can even sense that in some of the writings of their founders. Eglantyne Jebb at Save would have been of the opposite opinion - that work at home complemented their work abroad and vice versa.
As for followership - we should definitely explore this further.
To help with the desk research into the future of leadership in civil society, I want to post a thought for the week, each week, which people can leave their perspectives on.
This week we'll take an historical perspective on leadership. What can we learn from the ways in which leadership has been conceived and handled in the past?
A couple of kick-off thoughts:
Leaders in civil society at different times are inspired towards different causes. At one time the anti-slavery movement attracted the most talented, then it was UK social welfare issues, later international development. What fashions are leaders veering towards today? And at what expense?
In addition, leaders interested in social welfare issues move in and out of civil society as the debate surrounding the contribution of the sector evolves. In the 1940s-60s for example, the welfare state attracted much of the graduating cohort, a trend reversed as disillusion grew after the ‘rediscovery of UK poverty in the 1960s’. Is the sector believed in by today’s leaders or is proving its worth one of the greatest challenges for the future?
At the start of the 20th century educational policy was explicit that 5m elementary school children were being prepared for 'followership' whilst 110,000 secondary school children were prepared for 'leadership'. This reflected and reinforced the class structure. Does such an idea still exist today, though the concept of ‘followership’ has been politely sidelined (consider 44,000 hits on amazon.com for ‘leadership’ and only 23 for ‘followership’). Are we at all interested in followership and how does it relate to leadership? What does grooming leaders mean for the teams and structures that we create?
More Q’s:
Do you have any perspectives or thoughts about leadership as seen historically – what it has meant, who it has involved, why leaders were successful or failed?
Can you suggest any future trends to explore after taking an historical perspective on the topic of leadership - eg, drivers to be looking out for?
What are the issues that leaders today might be ‘blind’ to because of the context in which they have grown up?
Could the ‘great leaders’ of civil society in the past operate as leaders today? Why and why not?
Any useful reading?
Try to relate back to the 3 aims of the inquiry:
What challenges and opportunities will the next generation of VCS/civil society leaders have to deal with?
What is the current state of leadership development in the VCS/civil society?
How can the VCS/civil society prepare and attract its leaders of the future?
Adam
We were discussing last week that there are various historical trends that you can pick up and follow in tracking why leaders move in and out of civil society. This week, we'll be looking at who civil society leaders are, where they come from and what will change about this in the future.
I often think it interesting that other professions and sectors (private sector, sport, politics etc) have role models that people aspire to be like. Every budding entrepreneur wants to be Richard Branson, every footballer Michael Owen etc. Why is it that the sector does not (or cannot) have similar inspirational figures that every kid is talking about in the playground? It may seem slightly trite, but I think that it is a significant symptom at the crux of our problem.
The sector is clearly highly attractive later in life: Acevo have highlighted that 31.2% of the sector’s CEOs came from the private sector and over 50% from various public sector categories. Reasons being mainly ‘making a difference’ ‘interest in a specific job’. Pay cuts are freely accepted by those who make the shift. This suggests that the sector cannot fill its top jobs internally - either because it is impossible to get the right skills in the sector or underinvestment in leadership development.
So, two main questions today:
More questions to compliment:
And a reminder of our 3 aims with the inquiry:
Adam
Just a point of clarity - maybe it wasn't clearly phrased above, but I agree: I think the rediscovery of UK poverty was precisely something that brought people to the sector (eg, Shelter founded 1966) and away from the state.
A final example, though I'm sure there are many others: It is interesting that the history of Save shows it to have worked on UK child poverty issues since the very early 1920s, just after it was founded. Look at other international NGOs and you find them not working to tackle UK poverty in their early days and only just addressing them recently (Oxfam set up UKPP in 1996), or not at all (Christian Aid and Action Aid - as far as I'm aware). My hypothesis there would be that the state's huge intervention of the mid-twentieth century convinced the founders of INGOs founded at this time that UK issues were being safely dealt with - you can even sense that in some of the writings of their founders. Eglantyne Jebb at Save would have been of the opposite opinion - that work at home complemented their work abroad and vice versa.
As for followership - we should definitely explore this further.
Thanks for the comments. On to topic 2!
Adam
To help with the desk research into the future of leadership in civil society, I want to post a thought for the week, each week, which people can leave their perspectives on.
This week we'll take an historical perspective on leadership. What can we learn from the ways in which leadership has been conceived and handled in the past?
A couple of kick-off thoughts:
More Q’s:
What are the issues that leaders today might be ‘blind’ to because of the context in which they have grown up?
Could the ‘great leaders’ of civil society in the past operate as leaders today? Why and why not?
Try to relate back to the 3 aims of the inquiry: