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?
I was thinking about the challenges you set up here over the past couple of days - in particular the comment on attracting the most talented.
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (the President of Liberia) has just published her new biography 'This Child Will Be Great' (it's well worth a read). One of the things she points out in the illuminating history of Liberia is that it was settled by freed American slaves who were being - distastefully phrased now - returned home. This was big stuff in the anti-slavery movement at the time and attracted such talent as Benjamin Franklin.
Similarly, some of the iconic socially driven leaders such as Dr Barnardo or William Tuke http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/timeline/georgian/the-retreat may not now be highly regarded for their institutionalisation of destitute children or people with mental health problems.
More recently, special schools and the provision of aid for developing countries has evolved in its thinking and a new generation are leading the response in very different directions. I can see from the current generation of social leaders more people moving away from large charity orgs to social enterprises and entrepreneurial ventures or ones using technology based solutions. It was interesting to read recently that the media now attracts more Oxford firsts than politics.
I think that most - if not all - of the social leaders of the last generation moved in and out of various 'sectors' - I was reading an obit of a former Director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation who had been, variously, a civil servant (including a European civil servant), at a local authority and later in charitable organisations. I'm sure there are many others. I don't think that the rediscovery of UK poverty led people away from the sector, in fact many of the core academics: Peter Townsend, for example, worked very closely with the third sector in developing this thinking and finding solutions. If anything, re-exposing this scandal possibly attracted more of the brightest people in.
As for followership, I've been thinking for a while that the increasing HR focus in organisations on leadership is blotting out the core skills of management. Leaders we may be, effortlessly inspiring and blending team, but will the generation be able to manage that team to deliver results and drive performance? Maybe something for a future session.
I think you raise a very good point about what we are 'blind' to due to context. Why do the core problems remain intractable? I think the more we see social change led by those affected by poverty / inequality the more we will get to the core of the issue and deliver some really transformational outcomes.
The assumption you make is that by their very nature, third/voluntary sector organisations promote participation and whilst many of them do there is no actual requirement for them to do so, and no penalty if they don’t. And that I think is the crux of Simon’s point: that we can do great things to engage local communites but we are not mandated to do so.
I sometimes think that there is a bit of an emperor’s new clothes mentality about the third sector… no-one wants to admit that our sector is not all sweetness and perfection. Adam @ IntelligentGiving repeatedly makes the point that we allow the assumption that “charity” = “good organisation” and yet there are plenty of charities who are far from reputable.
Want some proof? Look how many charities don’t file their annual accounts with the Charity Commission. It’s the only thing that a charity is legally required to do each year, and countless charities don’t seem to have the ability to do it. And not just small charities. Now compare that with the furore over MPs trying to hide their expenses. It seems that whilst national and local politicians have to account for every penny they spend, charities can use other people’s money (often tax exempt) without bothering to file even the most basic of records.
Simon’s argument is that charities must not replace local civic representation because there is little accountability within the charity sector. Trustee boards are generally the “great and the good” and even when there is an active campaign to bring a wider set of people into the goverance of a charity it still relies on individuals who are selected and have no statutory accountability to anyone else.
Trust has been a much used term in the sector recently and so many articles, debates, blogs and discussions have emerged, and for every article or survey stating that public trust in charities has increased there is another stating that it has never been so low. It may leave us a little confused as to what to think, but maybe what we should take away from all this debate are some key themes that seem to run through all these debates such as transparent public reports and transparent governance that are essential in order to gain the publics trust.
So in these times of economic depression will the public trust less and give less or is philanthropy recession proof? Most economists are predicting a rapid decrease in donations to charities over the next 1 – 2 years and it would seem that in times of economic down turn people are less likely to begin to support new causes. So maintaining the trust of your existing supporters has never been so vital, and it would seem that honesty is the best policy. Beth Breeze of the newly established Centre for Philanthropy, Humanitarianism and Social Justice at the University of Kent recently was quoted as saying that letting our richest supporters know that we are struggling to maintain other inome sources may lead to increased support from our major donors.
So what does this mean for us – a chance to think of new and creative ideas to further engage our supporters whether they are our donors, our volunteers, our members or our clients? A chance to increase our openness and lines of communication with our beneficiaries and donors?
Adam
Current leaders, where they come from and how that's changing
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:
Steve
Historical perspectives on leadership
I was thinking about the challenges you set up here over the past couple of days - in particular the comment on attracting the most talented.
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (the President of Liberia) has just published her new biography 'This Child Will Be Great' (it's well worth a read). One of the things she points out in the illuminating history of Liberia is that it was settled by freed American slaves who were being - distastefully phrased now - returned home. This was big stuff in the anti-slavery movement at the time and attracted such talent as Benjamin Franklin.
Similarly, some of the iconic socially driven leaders such as Dr Barnardo or William Tuke http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/timeline/georgian/the-retreat may not now be highly regarded for their institutionalisation of destitute children or people with mental health problems.
More recently, special schools and the provision of aid for developing countries has evolved in its thinking and a new generation are leading the response in very different directions. I can see from the current generation of social leaders more people moving away from large charity orgs to social enterprises and entrepreneurial ventures or ones using technology based solutions. It was interesting to read recently that the media now attracts more Oxford firsts than politics.
I think that most - if not all - of the social leaders of the last generation moved in and out of various 'sectors' - I was reading an obit of a former Director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation who had been, variously, a civil servant (including a European civil servant), at a local authority and later in charitable organisations. I'm sure there are many others. I don't think that the rediscovery of UK poverty led people away from the sector, in fact many of the core academics: Peter Townsend, for example, worked very closely with the third sector in developing this thinking and finding solutions. If anything, re-exposing this scandal possibly attracted more of the brightest people in.
As for followership, I've been thinking for a while that the increasing HR focus in organisations on leadership is blotting out the core skills of management. Leaders we may be, effortlessly inspiring and blending team, but will the generation be able to manage that team to deliver results and drive performance? Maybe something for a future session.
I think you raise a very good point about what we are 'blind' to due to context. Why do the core problems remain intractable? I think the more we see social change led by those affected by poverty / inequality the more we will get to the core of the issue and deliver some really transformational outcomes.
Olly
Simon Jenkins and Civil Society
The assumption you make is that by their very nature, third/voluntary sector organisations promote participation and whilst many of them do there is no actual requirement for them to do so, and no penalty if they don’t. And that I think is the crux of Simon’s point: that we can do great things to engage local communites but we are not mandated to do so.
I sometimes think that there is a bit of an emperor’s new clothes mentality about the third sector… no-one wants to admit that our sector is not all sweetness and perfection. Adam @ IntelligentGiving repeatedly makes the point that we allow the assumption that “charity” = “good organisation” and yet there are plenty of charities who are far from reputable.
Want some proof? Look how many charities don’t file their annual accounts with the Charity Commission. It’s the only thing that a charity is legally required to do each year, and countless charities don’t seem to have the ability to do it. And not just small charities. Now compare that with the furore over MPs trying to hide their expenses. It seems that whilst national and local politicians have to account for every penny they spend, charities can use other people’s money (often tax exempt) without bothering to file even the most basic of records.
Simon’s argument is that charities must not replace local civic representation because there is little accountability within the charity sector. Trustee boards are generally the “great and the good” and even when there is an active campaign to bring a wider set of people into the goverance of a charity it still relies on individuals who are selected and have no statutory accountability to anyone else.
Jo
Trust
Trust has been a much used term in the sector recently and so many articles, debates, blogs and discussions have emerged, and for every article or survey stating that public trust in charities has increased there is another stating that it has never been so low. It may leave us a little confused as to what to think, but maybe what we should take away from all this debate are some key themes that seem to run through all these debates such as transparent public reports and transparent governance that are essential in order to gain the publics trust.
So in these times of economic depression will the public trust less and give less or is philanthropy recession proof? Most economists are predicting a rapid decrease in donations to charities over the next 1 – 2 years and it would seem that in times of economic down turn people are less likely to begin to support new causes. So maintaining the trust of your existing supporters has never been so vital, and it would seem that honesty is the best policy. Beth Breeze of the newly established Centre for Philanthropy, Humanitarianism and Social Justice at the University of Kent recently was quoted as saying that letting our richest supporters know that we are struggling to maintain other inome sources may lead to increased support from our major donors.
So what does this mean for us – a chance to think of new and creative ideas to further engage our supporters whether they are our donors, our volunteers, our members or our clients? A chance to increase our openness and lines of communication with our beneficiaries and donors?