Opinion

Agents of Change

Fri, 28 Jan 2022 12:58:06 GMT

‘The opportunity to make effective personal choices is highly unequal.’ (Robert A. Dahl - After the Revolution)

I worked as a coach with a client from Myanmar and asked her what she dreamed of. She looked at me blankly then responded that she was unable to conceive of a different reality to the one that she had lived until now. She felt crushed by the mental and practical constraints of living as an ethnic minority in a country dominated by a military dictatorship. The impact of unequal and unjust social-political power is not a fixed determinant of personal agency – but the stark psychological and tangible inequalities of choice and opportunity it engenders are significant.

You, like me, may have made new years’ resolutions at the start of this year. For many people, soon after having made a decision, the resolve will dissolve and be lost in the mists of time. Yet central to this idea of resolution is the notion of personal choice and, with it, the principle that I can succeed in achieving what I choose. I create (prayerfully) a list of key aspirations at the start of each year then put practical steps in place to fulfil them. It focuses on people and things that are important to me and, therefore, taps into values, motivation and determination.

We can think of this choosing-acting-influencing phenomenon as exercising agency. Shaun Gallagher describes this as, ‘the sense that I am the one who is causing or generating an action’. ‘I can choose’ is a profound existential, psychological and political statement and stance. It means I can break out beyond the apparent default of my circumstances. It implies we hold the potential to be catalysts of real change in the world, within ourselves as well as in broader relationships and situations – and this brings opportunity and responsibility.

A person's sense and scope of agency can be affected by structural factors that transcend the individual, e.g. social status; wealth; education; gender; ethnicity; culture. Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische observed that a person’s lived experience limits what possible alternatives or future scenarios they can imagine. Paulo Freire proposed, on a similar basis, that critical consciousness (‘conscientisation’) is a necessary condition for people to exercise freer choices and agency for change. Yet these factors remain influences, not definitive controls.

Other factors can include personal confidence, competence and capacity. If a person operates psychologically and relationally from a secure base with trust and support, that person is more likely to choose to take a positive risk. If, conversely, someone has experienced or anticipates unfair discrimination, negative evaluation or other painful consequences, to act can feel and be hazardous – especially if the stakes are high. As we have seen (above), agency can demand energy, courage and resilience. A person may not feel ready, willing or able to take that step.

So, some ways forward. If a client is unaware of or avoiding personal agency, William Glasser suggests stimulating his or her sense of reality, responsibility and relationship in order to enable more life-giving choices. If stuck in a pattern of apathy or passivity, John Blakey and Ian Day propose offering high challenge with high support. If we risk colluding with or disempowering a client, Reg and Madge Batten advise focusing attention on what the person can do for him- or herself and, only after that, what we could do by agreement on their behalf.

Viktor Frankl, a victim of Nazi persecution concluded that fundamentally: ‘The one thing you can’t take away from me is the way I choose to respond.’ In our personal, social and political lives, we can see how a person’s choices, actions and influence are affected by a diverse range of factors. These include the privileges a person may hold (or not) and the opportunities that they have benefited from by birth, background or context. The choice is real. Jesus – help me choose this year to exercise my agency for the life and liberation of others. We can be hope.

Nick Wright is a psychological coach, trainer and organisation development (OD) consultant who is based in the UK and works internationally. Nick is also an action learning facilitator for the Clore Social Leadership programme (www.nick-wright.com).

Shaping Our Environmental and Social Futures

Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:36:21 GMT

The recent release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and the upcoming COP26 United Nations Climate Change conference has focused the attention of many on the environmental crisis and what actions we must all take.

As part of the Clore Emerging Leaders online programme, a group of Social Sector Leaders are undertaking a Peer Learning challenge examining the role of the social sector in helping mitigate the environmental and climate crisis. The group represents areas across the social sector including young people, housing, social enterprise support, disability and social care, equality, diversity & inclusion and the environment:

Joel Attar (UnLtd), Annie Maclean (ForHousing), Matira Wheeler (Young Westminster Foundation), Anna Severwright (Social Care Future), Clenton Farquharson MBE (Think Local Act Personal) and Gail Smith (Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust).

Together they are developing tools and methods that help show colleagues in the social sector the links between their work and the environmental crisis; and ways they can use this to take positive action within their everyday.

If you would like to know more about the project please contact Gail Smith. Please come along to hear the outcomes of the project at a virtual sharing and learning session on Tuesday 2nd November, 12-1pm. Reserve your place at bit.ly/greensocialsector

How to up your Remote Leadership Game

Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:29:47 GMT

September has always felt like a back to school month and this year even more so than normal. Perhaps you’re back from holiday, planning out a busy few months ahead, or maybe you’re going into the office for a few days each week. Either way this month marks the beginning of a new phase of how we all work together and arguably, a fresh chapter in how we lead.

18 months into the pandemic, many of us are pretty confident with Zoom, running remote meetings and collaborating online. You may not need support in the mechanics of managing a virtual team. Yet new challenges and opportunities may be emerging for you, and I’ve seen this through my own work and those of the social sector organisations we advise.

Some common concerns I’m hearing about are:

Not having time to reflect on how you’ve led your team during the pandemic, and how you might need to shift your leadership style as ways of working evolve
Worries about burnout. According to the recent Charity Digital Skills Report Just under a third of nonprofits (31%) say their staff are burned out from the demands of intense remote working. How can you protect your team’s wellbeing and your own after more than a year of hard graft in incredibly stressful conditions?
With more emphasis on remote working and less on the four walls of the office, culture is at a premium. It’s the thing that will draw talented people to your team, and may also be the reason they leave. How might ‘the way we do things round here’ need to change from now?
How can I hire the best people and give them a running start in role remotely?
How might I keep finetuning the way my team and I work so we can keep improving and learning together?

We’ll be covering all of this plus how you and the people you lead can be productive, motivated, and successful as we enter the next phase of the pandemic in Clore’s new course for social sector leaders. We look forward to seeing you there.

The Clore Social Team on Resilience

Fri, 7 May 2021 12:21:10 GMT

During mental health awareness week, Clore Social is focusing on a word that we’ve heard a lot of during the past year: Resilience.

Our staff team sat down to talk about what comes to mind when we hear that word, and share any tips, tricks, and resources that we’ve found helpful. Here are some reflections:

“Resilience requires a lot of energy. So, when I have failures and setbacks, I feel like I need to understand what I can actually change and what is out of my control. That way, I can make sure to put that energy into targeted, practical changes so that the next time I try something, I will be able to succeed.”
“To me, resilience means being able to deal with stressful and uncertain situations and push through them repeatedly. The way that I do that is by pushing myself to do challenging things and exposing myself to stressful situations. It might not be for everyone, but the more I do something successfully, failure becomes less of a blow and I become more resilient.”

“A lot of people think that being resilient means being strong and never showing weakness, but I think it's important to know that you can feel weak at times, you can cry, you can let it out, whatever you need, as long as you know that this is a moment that will pass and that you're working towards achieving whatever you want to achieve. So, strength isn't specifically not showing weakness. It's about overcoming obstacles and bouncing back.”

“I think, especially during a pandemic, where the focus is so much on bouncing back or on, changing for the better after something difficult, there can be a lot of pressure to recover right away and even stronger than before. But sometimes, people need the space to process things without bouncing back, so we can’t make resilience the only option.”

“I was reading an article about the skills of resilient people, which included autonomy, self-awareness, adaptability, optimism, pragmatism, and social connection. One of the things that struck me was that all of these are learnable skills, and they’re skills that we see people grow on during our courses all the time. Even if they don’t come naturally to some people, there are always ways to grow our resilience.”

What does resilience mean to you? This week, take a couple of minutes to reflect on that word that’s been bouncing around so much this year. Maybe bring the conversation to your team and ask them what they think of when they think of resilience, both as an organisation and an individual.

Outside-In

Wed, 3 Mar 2021 09:25:45 GMT

A Change in Who and What Drives Change

By Nick Wright

“I want to exercise social leadership, not just organisational leadership.” Elaine McGinty, 2020

If you have seen the recent Netflix satirical drama, Emily in Paris, you will be familiar with the subtle-yet-radical distinction drawn between ‘influencers’ and, in this case, traditional marketing agencies. The central character, Emily, exerts influence through her personal presence, appearance, attitude and behaviour, and through engaging others via social media. She models leadership as a relational dynamic, in contrast to more conventional ideas of leadership related to structure or hierarchy. It shifts the fundamental, central focus from drives change, to who.

There are resonances here with wider social and political phenomena that, in the social sector, we will do well to pay careful attention to. Many beyond-profit organisations still operate from what is, arguably, an outdated organisation-centric paradigm. The basic modus operandi is this: “We are organisation X. We want to see change Y. Come and join us!” As such, the organisation perceives, positions and presents itself as the optimal vehicle for a desired social change and invites others to support its efforts, e.g. via financial giving, volunteering, campaigning or employment.

Now clearly, organisations do have certain advantages over the actions and activities of individuals. Organisations are, in most cases, still more likely to get a seat at the table of other organisations, including e.g. funders, governments or multilateral institutions. They will typically command larger budgets; creating opportunities for economy of scale and ability to run substantial, coordinated and sustainable programmes. They may also have access to the resources needed to develop and use specialist technologies that extend communications, type and scope of services and reach.

Yet there can be a costly flipside. Organisations are, by definition, organised (although the nature and degree of organisation varies widely) and this can create challenges with e.g. flexibility, adaptability, responsiveness and innovation. Organisations can, too, consume significant proportions of ‘their’ resources to develop, run and sustain themselves. At worst, organisations can lose touch with the realities and felt-experiences of their beneficiaries and supporters. As such, they can forfeit their vision, passion and mandate to catalyse and serve as agents of transformation.

Which begs some interesting and important questions for the social sector. At a time when the contexts in which we are operating are so volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous; when disintermediation is increasingly favoured over corporate control; when people are preferring direct experience and action to vicarious involvement; when social media is democratising social and political engagement; when a single, inspiring activist can exert more influence than governments in the world; what role then for organisations, and what does this call for as leadership?

Here are some thoughts. Firstly, social change organisations will need to shift further away from a conventional organisation-centric mentality to a more radically cause-centric one. This will involve scanning the environment – including in unexpected places – for people who are already exerting influence, who are already having an impact, and asking, ‘How can we support you?’ rather than ‘Will you support us?’ It will entail networking, spotting potential, making connections, creating synergies and being willing to step out of the spotlight to give others visibility and room.

Leaders of such organisations will need humility and courage; to practise dispersed and distributed leadership; to be willing to experiment, take risks and learn with others on route; to ensure open, permeable boundaries between the organisation’s internal and external environments and relationships; to embrace a spirit of curiosity that discovers, evokes, creates and empowers leadership in others; to affirm, nurture and sustain leadership that knows no structures or hierarchy; to take a stance for spiritual qualities including authentic love, trust, discernment, faith and hope.

Nick Wright is a psychological coach, trainer and organisation development (OD) consultant with over 25 years’ experience of working alongside leaders in charities and international NGOs (www.nick-wright.com).

Leading in the spotlight

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:30:09 GMT

As a long-term Trustee of the wonderful organisation that is Clore Social, Shaks Ghosh (Clore Social CEO), asked me for some personal reflections on leadership, and in particular leading through difficult times.

I have been in the public service for my whole career, including some periods right in the spotlight. Periods when my work was in the national news more or less every day, and periods when what we were doing was particularly tough. I am currently the Director General responsible for the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire. My experiences have caused me to reflect a lot on what needs to be done to lead teams through periods of stress, and to build resilience. I don’t have any magic answers, or much book learning to share. All I can talk about is what has helped me. Some reflections:

Spreading the Load. Being good at what you do and surviving sticky moments is, in my view, mostly about the people who work for you, and about others who can help you to spread the load. Rarely can you do big things all by yourself. I certainly can’t. The more taxing the situation, the less likely I find myself to be the answer. As a leader, I think this has to mean gaining strength by giving away power. Why does the co-pilot and not the pilot fly the plane a lot of the time? I am told it is because the pilot can correct the actions of the co-pilot far more readily than the co-pilot can correct the actions of his or her boss. If you empower your team to get on with the job and hold yourself in reserve as coach, counsellor and advisor, you will (in the short run) create a more powerful unit, and (in the long run) grow your people. Furthermore, if you make a habit of recruiting people who are better than you and/or complement your skillset, and pay attention to their growth and development, you will end up with a stronger unit. Don’t then worry too much about losing great people to bigger jobs. Just make sure you are a leader even better people want to work for.

“As a leader, I think this has to mean gaining strength by giving away power." Mark Fisher

There are other ways of spreading the load too. Pester your allies and abuse your networks. In my experience even the busiest people are enormously generous with their advice. You will need it. Find and then work closely with partners - if there are others travelling willingly with you on your journey you are more likely to be right!

Creating Organisational Resilience. How resilient is the organisation, and how I can improve it? I have tried in particular to cement and communicate belief and purpose, and celebrate success. Few things are more important than giving people a powerful reason to come to work. I try to be calm in any crisis, and deal quickly with any internal problems. Nothing weakens a team as rapidly as a breakdown between team members. You need to be there when it matters for people, take the most difficult meetings, and be the lightning rod for criticism. Perhaps most importantly, you have to allow people to be affected by things, ensure there is proper counselling and wellbeing support, take advantage of it yourself, and be seen to do so.

"None of this is possible unless you look after yourself." Mark Fisher

Personal Resilience None of this is possible unless you look after yourself. Do things, and only do things, that you believe in, have purpose and play to your values. Find colleagues you want to work with. Avoid over-reach, and over-ambition, and give yourself time for other things!

-------------

Mark Fisher CBE FRSA is a Clore Social Trustee and Director General and Secretary to the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry.

The hidden group facing a double lockdown

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:30:55 GMT

Paula Harriott is an integral member of the Double Lockdown Programme design group. Here she shines a light on the reality facing people experiencing the criminal justice system, and the lived experience leaders working tirelessly to support them.

As Autumn 2020 progresses, the social sector is forced to face the ongoing uncertainties and complexities of a second wave of the pandemic. As we move out of universal lockdown, we grapple with the possibilities of more, and the devastating impact this is having on vulnerable and marginalised communities. But there is one hidden group of society experiencing the effects of a double lockdown, which requires urgent and sustained attention and support.

Just like any community, prisoners and people leaving prisons, including children and young people, and their families, are anxious about Covid-19, but feel forgotten by the general public as they endure the harshest of lockdowns. A lockdown which has left many confined to a cell for up to 23 hours a day since March 2020, with little contact with other human beings.

"A lockdown which has left many confined to a cell for up to 23 hours a day since March 2020, with little contact with other human beings." Paula Harriot

Social leaders supporting prisoners and those leaving prisons are witnessing a major disruption to the criminal justice regime. Prisons have ceased crucial rehabilitation activities and interventions. There is major disruption to work activities, rehabilitative programmes and education, and a consequent disruption to preparation for parole and progression. Vital visits with loved ones have been stopped for months and are now re-starting, with social distancing, and no physical contact. With a second wave emerging this may all cease once again.

Likewise, people on probation are having to contend with online appointments and accessing services which are no longer face to face - conditions negatively impacting the delivery of the intense support required for the benefit of communities. The impending renationalisation of the probation service creates new challenges of potential disruption to an already strained service and many across the Criminal Justice sector have growing concerns over the dismantling of the Community Rehabilitation Companies.

"Lived experience leaders working across the Criminal Justice Sector have been challenged as never before." Paula Harriot

Lived experience leaders working across the Criminal Justice Sector have been challenged as never before as they navigate a complex and ever-evolving terrain. Many continue to work tirelessly on emergency responses, while others move towards thinking about recovery, renewal or building back better in a post-Covid world. We know that economic hardship and other social inequalities are on the way, while pre-existing inequities are on the rise, including racial injustice.

There is no doubt about the need for this programme, and the commitment of the LEx Leaders Movement at the Centre for Knowledge Equity and Clore Social teams to deliver. Coronavirus should not deter us from service at this crucial time and we must play our part to strengthen a sector that is having to do its utmost to serve some of the most marginalised people in our country.

"We must play our part to strengthen a sector that is having to do its utmost to serve some of the most marginalised people in our country." Paula Harriot

We therefore plan to respond quickly to design and deliver a programme which equips lived experience leaders with some of the skills, resilience and confidence that they need to rise to the challenges ahead. Essentially, the programme will build skills and leadership behaviours in the sector and ensure that lived experience leaders are better able to support and manage themselves, their people, organisations, and communities.

The leadership landscape of the Criminal Justice System is varied and diverse covering the voluntary, charity, public and private sectors – also spanning the intersection of multiple and complex injustices and disadvantage including homelessness; recovery and addiction; mental health; gender, racial injustice and/or economic injustice and poverty.

As part of that landscape there is a vibrant and growing community of Lived Experience Leaders (LEx leaders). People with direct, first-hand experience of the Criminal Justice System who are activating their lived experiences, in combination with their learned and practice experiences, to improve the lives of the communities they share experiences with. However, often LEx leaders have little, if any, support to develop their leadership skills in a strained and overstretched sector.

"This programme creates the space to meet all these ambitions." Paula Harriot

As a senior Lived experience leader in the criminal justice sector I see every day the undeniable contribution that those with lived experience make. I also witness the challenges we face as we seek to redefine the challenges and offer solutions; often reduced to labels that keep us within a ‘service user’ model, anonymous participants in research or depicted as too passionate or partisan.

Leadership, collaboration, and collective action are critical components of the change we seek. This programme creates the space to meet all these ambitions, building leadership, bringing people together and building the foundations of collective vision and action. I am delighted to be part of this initiative and salute the efforts of our allies at the Centre for Knowledge Equity and their partners Clore Social in supporting us to bring this about.

Nick Wilkie’s reflections on social leadership

Fri, 4 Dec 2020 16:21:11 GMT

“No leader knows where their influence ends - the effect of your leadership is incalculably diffusive. It travels further and influences more than you can possibly imagine.”

Speaking at our Emerging Leader Programme celebration event on 12 March, Nick Wilkie, former NCT CEO, says that“no leader knows where their influence ends - the effect of your leadership is incalculably diffusive. It travels further and influences more than you can possibly imagine.” Looking at the socioeconomic context of the social sector, at the concept of leadership as an individual act, and at a picture of a beaver next to a dam, Nick thinks out loud about what it can be to lead in the social sector now. We’re delighted to have translated Nick’s reflections into a blog and hope you will enjoy reading it.

I’ve had the privilege of leading in a number of different organisations and whenever I am asked to discuss leadership, I am tempted to say nothing more than what two very different individuals from very different backgrounds, both of whom I respect greatly, said to me at different times.

The first is a woman called Laura McArthur who was in the People team at a charity where I worked, who once said to me: ‘If I ever write a book, it will be one page and will say: listen to what people say and what they don’t say; pay attention to the small stuff; treat everyone like a human being; do all of that all the time, never forget.’

The second is a man called Field Marshall, the Lord Guthrie, who was President of London Youth when I was chief executive. He had spent a lifetime in the military, ending up as Chief of the Defence Staff, having earlier commanded the Welsh Guards and SAS. He looked at me at a point at which I was rambling on and not perhaps thinking clearly, and said with both precision and kindness: “You just have to find great people, and love them a lot. I mean really love them.”

"You just have to find great people, and love them a lot. I mean really love them." Charles Guthrie

And I am often tempted as I am now to share these two perspectives and stop there, because I really do think that fundamentally there is nothing else to say. But I never do, because there is much to say about leadership. In fact, once you start thinking about what you might reflect on the challenge is what to cut, there is an almost infinite range of subjects we could cover.

First, whilst I don’t think we should define civil society by its relationship to the state, I do think that if the government can direct investment to an unparalleled degree and make laws, then if we get up every morning aiming to change the world, we do need to think carefully about our relationship with the state. And it’s a tricky one right now, I think. In the nineties and noughties, in a time of economic plenty and a sympathetic government with big majorities, a fairly typical theory of change for many charities was: grow through public service delivery and deliver these services better than the state; and use rational argumentation and insider tracks (through good relationships with civil servants and junior ministers) to effect policy change.

Now both these flushes feel busted - austerity doesn’t feel like it’s over, few charities are growing, and many are at the end of a decade of grinding budget rounds. Meanwhile Brexit has, of course, eclipsed social policy and, looking beyond Brexit (however it is ‘done’), neither a populist right nor statist left seem terribly interested in our sector.

Second, our sector feels to me quite inward looking at the moment. For understandable reasons, we’re beset with institutional pre-occupations, concerns about safeguarding, workplace culture, senior salaries, fundraising practice - many, especially more established charities, contending with massive technical debt, historic wrongs, pension deficits. It’s emphatically not a criticism to observe that most leaders are spending most of their time looking into their organisations. But it is a real challenge right now, and one we all need to meet, to find the space and energy and creativity, to look up and look out, to connect and keep connecting with people and ideas well beyond our immediate orbit.

"It’s emphatically not a criticism to observe that most leaders are spending most of their time looking into their organisations."

And third, of course, you are being asked to look up and lead in a time of pervasive mistrust in leaders (and perhaps even in the very idea of leadership). So I think leadership is hard and I think it is particularly hard in civil society right now. Of course that could be taken simply to depress you, I don’t mean it to at all. Quite the opposite in fact, because at a time of complexity, your leadership is going to count more than ever. I don’t think that the grand challenges and great opportunities of this ‘now-not-so-new’ century can be met by state or market without society in its organised form playing the pivotal part. And so if I look out and see storm clouds, I also think there really is always a golden sky at the end of the storm. I look out and see too much love and conviction and brilliance in our sector to be anything other than hopeful.

The second thing I wanted to address is something about this cartoon, because I think it contains an awful lot - or more specifically, three interrelated ideas about leadership. Namely that:

Leadership is a fundamentally collective and communal act. It isn’t about autonomous individuals.

An awful lot of good leadership isn’t about what is immediately visible, nor about the big and the heroic final act, but rather centred upon the quiet and the daily and all the ground-work that goes into building great things.

That no leader knows where their influence ends - the effect of your leadership is incalculably diffusive. It travels further and influences more than you can possibly imagine.

We are used, I think, to framing leadership as the work of individuals. Our narratives are cast by reference to individual leaders. Yet I wonder if we can be too ready to keep our conception of leadership as an individual act. We hear a lot about authentic leadership just now, which I absolutely think is a good thing. Yet I also wonder whether inadvertently the grail of authenticity, coupled with the call for leaders to show some personal vulnerability, and our desire to know our leaders on more human terms, can lead us to focus too much on individual personalities at the expense of exploring the collective ideas and endeavours of leadership. Indeed, I was asked to share something of my story. On Clore Social’s Emerging Leader Programme, you have done much work these past six months on your self-awareness and develop your personal learning journey, all the while, I hope, encouraged to practice self-care.

None of this is bad, please don’t misunderstand me. We all need to work from the inside out. And authenticity, self-awareness, self-care are all good things. It’s just that I think great leadership also pays homage to some older-fashioned ideas too - ideas of service and duty and selflessness, that perhaps we hear and read less about.

Because the collective is in some ways counter cultural and here I am very grateful to the ideas of a brilliant coach and thinker with whom I have had the privilege of working, called Douglas Board (@BoardWryter). Douglas notes, and I quote, that from the moment we step into our first places of learning, we are asked to write down and call out our own names. We get report cards telling us what we have accomplished on our own. Later when we submit longer pieces of writing, we have to sign our solemn promise that this is all my own work. This is absurd. Nothing is all our own work – how can it possibly be? We are inextricably linked - all part of a shared space and culture and it is in this reality that we lead.

"From the moment we step into our first places of learning, we are asked to write down and call out our own names." Douglas Board

We need to move from the idea that leadership springs simply from individual brilliance. As Douglas Board suggests, we would do well to move from Descartes’s ‘I think therefore I am’ to the South African idea of Ubuntu - ‘I am because you are’, as both a more honest, and a richer starting point. Because the great paradox of leadership of course is that it is both everything and nothing about us.

From this flows the thought that a lot of great leadership is found in continual attention to what we might think of as the small stuff, not even perhaps in leadership so much as good management. Of course, strategy, insight, judgement and personifying the brand - what we might think of as the analytical and externalising skillsets - matter enormously. Yet if leadership is at root about helping other people be the best they can be, we need to pay continual attention to another set of worker-bee traits: to the structures we build and habitual behaviours we exhibit.

Does everyone in your organisation, department or team have regular one-to-ones that focus on feelings and learning and happiness as much as on delivering and being accountable? Do team meetings start on time, do they and have a rich and varied agenda, are actions written up and shared promptly? Are budgets devolved as far as they possibly can be? Are your planning processes set up so that everyone plays their part in thinking about tomorrow? Do you say goodbye at the end of every day?

I wonder if we can all be guilty at times of being leadership snobs, looking to leadership and strategy over the heads of operations and management. Indeed, when we get promoted it’s often framed as moving beyond operations, yet the longer I spend in work, the more I think it’s in the day-to-day and the prosaic, in the long littleness of organisational life, in the consistent application of care, that great leaders make things tick and people want to come into work.

This leads to the last part of my ramblings on this cartoon, which is that our actions and our ideas and our actions as leaders reach far beyond us. Like Mrs Beaver here, what we think and do, how we behave and relate, has enormous consequences for those around us.

We are all near-obsessed about contagion right now. Nothing transmits more than leadership, for good or ill, energy is infectious and the effect of your being as a leader is incalculably diffusive.

It really matters.

"Nothing transmits more than leadership, for good or ill energy is infectious."

--

Nick Wilkie has been Chief Executive of the National Childbirth Trust and London Youth, Director of UK Programmes at Save the Children and head of sustainable funding at NCVO. He has also served on the boards of a number of charitable and public institutions, and as a policy advisor to Cabinet Office and HM Treasury. Now his time is spent mainly with his three young children, whilst supporting a small number of charities as a trustee and as an associate at the Centre for Charity Effectiveness at Cass Business School.

The importance of diverse and inclusive leadership

Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:30:48 GMT

When Alison spoke of her experience of child sexual abuse, the atmosphere in the room changed. Not only did people sit up and listen, but I think people felt more comfortable, knowing this was a safe space in which we could be honest and vulnerable. This is the kind of example a leader can set, the kind of environment they can create.

As a young woman of colour who’s just joined the charity sector as an intern, I can’t begin to explain what it meant to hear Alison Lowe, a CEO who is a black woman, speaking of her journey so honestly. My transition into the third sector straight out of university has been at times uncertain. So to see someone much further ahead in their journey, who I could actually relate to, was comforting to say the least.

In October I went to Hull for a Clore Social chapter meeting. Going in I didn’t really know what to expect, I knew I’d be meeting Clore Social fellows and alumni. I also knew there was going to be a guest speaker, but truthfully, I didn’t expect the talk to have much of an impact on me, or how I think of leadership.

So imagine my surprise when Alison started talking about being one of the few black people on her estate growing up, and the racism she faced. I suddenly felt strangely (but maybe not surprisingly) anxious. Anxious because I thought, will people take her less seriously now? Will this (largely white) audience think she’s playing the “race card”?

I could tell people appreciated how frankly she spoke of her experience. They asked a lot of insightful questions afterwards, mainly about how to encourage people of colour and other minority groups to apply for jobs at their charities. To be honest, this surprised me because it feels like race is still the elephant in a very white room.

"But Alison made people feel comfortable discussing race, maybe when they normally wouldn’t be."

But Alison made people feel comfortable discussing race, maybe when they normally wouldn’t be.

Diverse and inclusive leadership is important. I think part of being a leader means people look to you for direction and will follow by example. This was clear to me when I saw the shift in the dynamic of the room first when Alison spoke about child sexual abuse, and again when she brought up racism. People took this as a cue to speak more openly and allow themselves to be vulnerable.

In hearing Alison speak, I saw her practising so many things I’ve realised an inclusive leader should be doing. In her honest dialogue, she gave others a space to feel safe speaking openly.

"The road to diversity and inclusion is paved with uncomfortable conversations."

The road to diversity and inclusion is paved with uncomfortable conversations. But when directed by a leader who creates an environment to accommodate these growing pains, like Alison did, real change can take place.

It’s possible that efforts to increase diversity in the charity sector will seem tokenistic if they aren’t accompanied by inclusive leadership. At one point Alison mentioned wondering if her workplace would be safe for her own children, who are both LGBT+. This for me is one of the most important things leaders need to be considering in their workplaces.

"There’s no point congratulating ourselves on how diverse we are, if we aren’t supporting those who provide the diversity in our workplace."

There’s no point congratulating ourselves on how diverse we are, if we aren’t actively supporting those people who provide the diversity in our workplace.

I know before starting my role I was terrified of what seemed like the great unknown, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. But two months in I’m less afraid and more determined to keep pushing for the change needed to make the third sector a less scary and more inclusive place.

Blog by Isha Negi, Engagement Intern at Clore Social Leadership

Contracts Culture and Non-Profit Leadership

Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:27:21 GMT

Don Macdonald, editor of ‘Innovation and Change in Non-Profit Organisations’ discusses the contracts culture and its impact on non-profit and community organisations.

With the contracts culture and outsourcing both growing, larger organisations now dominate - both private and non-profit; smaller non-profit organisations are excluded, to be included occasionally as bid candy. Contracts have grown larger, with price becoming all-important. There have been numerous incidents of dubious practice by private companies delivering outsourced contracts, even cases of fraud. Carillion, Southern Cross and others have collapsed, while two thirds of key Government suppliers are based in tax havens. All this of course poses issues for non-profit leaders in managing bidding.

I am moving house after 36 years so must sift through an enormous amount of books and papers. The most interesting paper was a presentation about outreach work by . She outlined two critical aspects to underpin this work; firstly there should be a postponement of self-definition in the work, thus the worker starts off with no pat answers but continually questions what they do. Secondly there needed to be a delay in setting goals, until the worker actually knew what problems faced the community, service users and other stakeholders. Then one should devise realistic services and goals, to be evaluated properly.

That was 1978, when I had been doing outreach work for five years for a non-profit organisation, grant-aided by two local authorities. I felt Jo's presentation made so much sense, conceptualising almost exactly what I had been trying to do. However reading it again in 2019 started me thinking that these precepts should underlie how organisations approach new projects and how non-profit leaders should initiate new projects.

I worked for some years within the public sector, overseeing funds to voluntary organisations, so have seen both sides. There were obviously disadvantages to councils awarding grants to local non-profit organisations; often incumbent organisations and those with good connections with officers or councillors were viewed more favourably. Evaluation sometimes took a back seat.

Grants for local organisations have now mostly been replaced by contracts, often allocated through competitive tender and linked to goals specified before work starts. This can be difficult for most small non-profit organisations but just normal everyday bidding for large organisations, both non-profit and private. I believe large organisations should not parachute into areas unless they have good links with those communities, or they explore in depth what real needs exist locally and what non-profit organisations and networks already operate. Unfortunately parachuting in is exactly what the contract culture encourages as it expects the contractor to know what to do before they start.

The Social Value Act (2012) required councils to consider the social, economic and environmental benefits of decisions on contracts above £170,000. But there is concern that the Act is not working well. Two in three councils were not implementing it according to a survey three years after enactment, while a House of Lords committee believes too little is being carried out to encourage commissioning based on impact, not cost. Others recommend ethical commissioning to encompass fair employment and wages, tax compliance and localism.

Small non-profit organisations and community groups can find it difficult to survive and thrive in this contract culture. Yet in a rapidly-changing world smaller organisations can be more agile and inventive, and more in touch with local communities’ needs than larger ones, if leaders are correctly oriented and trained. There was even research which suggested that most innovation in community care came from local staff. Thus smaller non-profit groups are in pole position to develop and deliver projects in which relevant and pioneering services are worked out together with the local community and service users. This does require the right responses and decisions from these organisations' leaders, who must multi-task, while prioritising different demands on their own time and on their teams' resources and also consulting all the stakeholders.

Blog by Don Macdonald

A group of non-profit leaders have written a book, in which examples of such community-based projects are described and analysed, including practical aspects of leadership and management. Don Macdonald, a trainer, trustee and former charity CEO, has edited the book Innovation and Change in Non-Profit Organisations with contributions from respected experts. These include Charles Fraser, CEO of St Mungos for 20 years, who describes the difficulties it faced developing comprehensive services for an unpopular group of clients. Community Catalysts supports local self-help groups to bring communities together and take positive cost effective action, as outlined by their CEO, Sian Lockwood, while Clore Social Leadership’s CEO Shaks Ghosh analyses how to train and support non-profit managers in an increasingly demanding milieu.

The power of a place-based approach to leadership

Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:24:30 GMT

Carrie Cuno, Clore Social Leadership’s Development Manager, on how investing in a place-based approach to leadership could reinvigorate communities across the UK.

As the world becomes ever more globalised and interdependent, government responses to the rapidly changing economic, social, and environmental conditions arguably are failing the majority of constituents, especially here in the UK. A common response is to call for ‘stronger’ leadership, but with little understanding of what that looks like, or of the abilities needed to drive social change. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional notions of leadership, and one answer could be a community - or place-based approach to leadership that allows for more inclusive forms of governance and social activism.

Community leadership can be based on common place, purpose or experience, and is increasingly recognised as a driver of social change. It operates within the boundaries of the group it serves, representing an interactive, reciprocal form of leadership rather than a fixed hierarchy. And place-based leadership welcomes and supports people from all different backgrounds to build change together, creating vital networks that can then provide opportunities for collaborative working, creative thinking, and peer support - all of which are crucial to building a dynamic and thriving society.

Because communities are based on shared experiences and connections, this kind of leadership is less hierarchical than its traditional, top-down counterpart. Community leaders operate everywhere in society, from a housing estate playground to the VCSE sector to the local authority; so, crucially, place-based leadership must be multi-level rather than restricted to those in positions of authority. This approach allows leaders to disrupt traditional power structures, creating space for new and innovative ways of thinking.

"Place-based leadership must be multi-level rather than restricted to those in positions of authority."

So how do we support community leaders? We build inclusive spaces where people can focus on personal development and relationship-forming--vital skills that will help them understand and participate in decision-making processes. We invest in leadership development programmes that cater to all community members instead of restricting leadership to those at executive or managerial levels. Most importantly, we challenge traditional notions of leadership, framing it in such a way as to provide social legitimation to community leaders who drive change rather than safeguard the status quo.

This was the approach taken with Clore Social Leadership’s place-based leadership development programme that ran across Hull and East Yorkshire last year. HEY100 offered leadership development and training to more than 100 social leaders at different levels across the community. The programme worked across traditional silos and brought together leaders from charities, social enterprises, community businesses and arts/cultural organisations. The interim findings recently released show that a place-based programme can build a sense of purpose across a city or region, galvanizing leaders around shared goals.

Making a commitment to develop leadership capacity and capability across communities can have an impact far wider than local social sectors. An active and engaged citizenry is key to holding our local, regional, and national governments accountable and ensuring officials act in the best interests of our communities. Underpinning all of Clore Social’s work is the belief that leadership is a set of skills and behaviours that anyone can develop. Redefining it as such drastically lowers the barrier to civic participation, amplifying the voices of community members whilst increasing the government’s receptivity to hearing those voices.

"An active and engaged citizenry is key to holding our local, regional, and national governments accountable..."

Leadership, and especially community leadership, is not a static concept; but mutual trust, shared vision, and collaborative planning are critical. Only by empowering all our leaders, strengthening the relationships that underpin a place, and making space for the personal growth that allows those relationships to flourish can we ensure that our towns and cities are able to face the challenges of the 21st century and beyond.

Leading the Movement: Fiona Mactaggart plenary speech

Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:21:35 GMT

Earlier this year, in collaboration with The Social Change Agency, we hosted Leading the Movement: Women, Power, Change, our women's conference designed to bring together senior and emerging feminist leaders, new allies, and leading figures in the women’s movement.

The day saw a great range of inspirational speakers and participants come together to develop movement-building skills and a common vision for the future of the feminist movement. The tone of the day was set by Fiona MacTaggart, Chair of Fawcett Society, Agenda, and former Labour MP for Slough, who opened the conference with a plenary speech focused on how we can use the lessons from past feminist movements to drive the present movement forward.

"Women’s movements have always had to be brave because they consistently challenge the status quo."

The speech provided an engaging account of the past feminist movements, addressing some pressing and relevant questions: What can contemporary feminist leaders learn from the challenges and accomplishments of the past women’s movement? What are the issues we are facing today? And what should leaders do to ensure we’re comprehensively and effectively challenging inequality?

To capture the insightful remarks, we have transcribed the speech into a pamphlet which can be downloaded below.

Responding to the Julia Unwin challenge: Wise and generous leadership will save us!

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:16:28 GMT

Blog written by Shaks Ghosh and Jessica Taplin

At a recent Clore Social CEO Masterclass, Julia Unwin gave us a sneak preview of her report into Civil Society and challenged us to rethink our social leadership model.

Julia painted a dark picture: social security in crisis, economic restructuring, challenges to managerialism and blurring boundaries between sectors, increasing pressure on places from localism and social fragmentation. We face a growing fear of polarisation of generations, both economic and cultural, environmental pressures, global volatility and the increase in nationalism, rising numbers of displaced people and geopolitical strife. Most significant, as Julia states, is the shift in focus from We to Me.

Cripes, that’s rather full on. In response, we know that our task as social leaders is to maintain and strengthen Civil Society by upskilling ourselves to navigate the next decade.

Our sector has shifted, professionalised and with it has come a reliance on structure, staff, institutions and funding. Whilst austerity might be “over” according to the powers that be, we know that the heady days of government largess from the noughties are not returning. Many organisations that were reliant on largess are already accelerating towards oblivion. Many others plough on from funded project to project, jumping through funder shaped hoops which might not run true to their own organisational mission.

So what resource do we have to continue our vital role in civil society? We have the resource that our sector has always relied on: people. People who never fail to surprise us by what they can achieve.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has." Margaret Meade

To social leaders everywhere our message is this: you have huge, incredible un-tapped resources, and that is your people. Great, inspirational, genuine, caring, committed, compassionate people – change makers.

And the best leaders amongst us will be able to unleash them for social good. People will follow and go to incredible lengths for authentic leaders and leaders they love. To do this we must rethink our leadership, growing the next generation of change-makers, sharing our wisdom and skills. For many of us it means the re-alignment to those virtues that lie at the core of what the social sector is about - kindness, bravery and honesty. In his book The Road to Character, David Brooks talks about shifting from a focus on external success to internal value.

Amongst the people who we must inspire are trustees and directors. Many charities still struggle with unskilled and egocentric trustee boards. Being a Trustee should be an act of humble leadership - to genuinely help and add wisdom, working alongside and in a critical friend way to the executive team. We must help trustees, no matter what their day job, to learn the skills of listening, empowering and appropriately challenging the Executive team in their own leadership role. Julia sums it up well: it’s about Power, Accountability, Connection, Trust.

"Julia sums it up well: it’s about Power, Accountability, Connection, Trust."

Modern leadership, getting the best from teams, resources and networks, is about rethinking the power dynamic. To lead is to have power, a privilege to be cherished. Leaders today need to find smart ways of sharing power to shift imbalances. We know that leaders must grow leaders, not monopolise their power.

As senior leaders we know that experience does count, but it doesn’t automatically mean we are right. So the trick is to encourage shared accountability, building relationships based on dialogue and feedback. There is little room for rigidity in a service based world, and Julia reminds us that we exist to serve. User needs are paramount, and to meet the constant evolution of need and circumstance, we need to be more adaptive, embrace the unknown, admit mistakes and adapt how we do things. We are all constantly learning and improving, as leaders we must encourage this in ourselves.

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill

Leadership is fundamentally a relational activity. How many of us really meet all people as equals, recognising their complexity, frailty and value. We know that dispersed and egalitarian forms of leadership help build better solutions and approaches, yet we lack the courage to adopt these forms of leadership. During their study, Clore Social Fellows regularly ask each other a powerful question: what would you do if you were ten times braver? Social leaders are in their roles to make social change or to give social service. Both require bravery beyond belief and deep wells of resourcefulness and resilience.

Today’s leadership requires us to care for ourselves and be kinder others. The dog-eat-dog world many leaders live in is no good for our sector. Do we have the courage to change and adopt more generous and collaborative approaches?

To be clear, many social sector leaders have these qualities and more. These last years of austerity have seen many social sector leaders heroically steering ships that are already over the edge, parachutes and kites all desperately launched to try and slow the fall. They are feisty yet kind, resilient, generous. We can learn from them.

So to Julia’s challenge to find new models of leadership for the stormy waters ahead, we say: “I am not afraid of storms for I am learning to sail my ship”. Louisa May Alcott

"I am not afraid of storms for I am learning to sail my ship." Louisa May Alcott

Charities need to stop pretending they are transparent

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:19:01 GMT

Matt Stevenson-Dodd is the Chief Executive of Street League, UK’s leading sport for employment charity, and has been recently selected by The Guardian as one of the top charity CEO’s on social media. Matt is a guest speaker on the Clore6: Youth Sector Emerging Leaders Programme on 8 March.

The problem for charities with transparency is simple. Driven by a scarcity of funding, we feel compelled to tell ever more hard-hitting stories about the beneficiaries we serve rather than balancing this storytelling with hard facts about the actual impact we achieve (or don’t).

I believe we have reached the pinnacle of this story telling culture, epitomized by the collapse of Kids Company, who were seemingly built only on good stories with very few ‘facts’ to back them up.

This needs to change.

We need to balance good storytelling with hard facts, even if these hard facts don’t always tell a good story. If charities are truly focused on those in most need, then we have to accept that sometimes our work is really difficult and it doesn’t always get the results we want. We have a duty to tell this story, talking about what we do, as well as what we DON’T DO accurately and transparently.

Many charities think they are measuring their impact by reporting huge numbers of people they have ‘helped’. But what does ‘helped’ actually mean? Is it just saying hello to someone or does it mean truly making a change in that person’s life? This is where the culture of telling a good story has unfortunately taken over from transparent accurate impact reporting.

Let’s take a very measurable outcome, like getting someone a job. In many ways it is a binary ‘on or off’ outcome because that person will either get a job or they won’t, right? Well, yes to an extent, but unfortunately that is where many charities stop – they just tick the box and report that they have helped someone get outcome.

We don’t actually know anything about that person and whether they truly needed the help of the charity. What if the person who got the job was actually a university graduate with no socio-economic barriers the day before? Let’s say the charity helps them get a job, which is all good, but then they walk out of it the next day. In the current culture the box is still ticked, one job outcome recorded, regardless of whether they genuinely needed help and the longer-term impact.

Not good enough.

Outcomes are sometimes hard to measure, but not impossible. The softer the outcome (like improving someone’s self-esteem for example), the harder it is to measure. Even the easier to measure outcomes, like whether someone got a job, can also prove tricky – hence the need for more transparency and openness.

Let’s go back to our job outcome. To fully understand what is going on we need much more information to determine whether the charity is genuinely making a difference. We need to know whether the person we have helped needed it and what long-term change we actually made in their lives.

I am CEO of a charity called Street League – we are the UK’s leading Sport for Employment Charity. We have been fortunate enough to work with Impetus-PEF and Inspiring Scotland (the UK’s top Venture Philanthropy organisations) over the past seven years, who have pushed us hard to develop transparent impact measurement. We have been on a three-stage journey.

Pre-2010 we used to just measure ‘participation’ – the number of people who took part in our sessions. We stopped that and moved to an outcomes based model, very much like the one I outline above – ticking the box when we achieved a job or training outcome. That was better, but still a long way from the transparency we wanted.

Four years ago we introduced a new system which tracked the whole journey of the young person; from the moment we met them, right through to helping them stay in a job for six months or more. We examined where the young people were coming from, including the barriers they faced, and introduced a rigorous internal audit that required every outcome we achieved to be validated. Now, a job outcome is only valid once we have a photocopy of a first month’s pay slip or a job offer letter.

Last November we presented all of this information in our most transparent Annual Report to date which is available here. We have devoted the first section to talking about everything we didn’t get right, before we go on to talk about what we did get right. It has not been easy and we still have a way to go, but full data clarity has enabled us to throw a spotlight on our model, learn from our mistakes and change things so we can better serve our beneficiaries.

There have been many attempts to produce a unified measurement system for the charity sector. These virtuous attempts have usually ended in too higher a degree of complexity to make them workable. I believe there is a more straightforward and simple alternative.

All charities should agree to three high-level rules for reporting, which would kick start a revolution in transparency. At Street League we call these our ‘Three Golden Rules’:

Never over-claim what you do
All percentages must include absolute numbers
All outcomes must be backed by auditable evidence
If we all started with this, transparency will follow.

__

Matt Stevenson-Dodd is a guest speaker on Clore6: Youth Sector Emerging Leaders Programme, where he will share his lessons on impact and the importance of transparency for good leadership.

If you are interested in hearing from inspiring speakers and experts in social sector leadership, check out our upcoming open Clore6 programme. The applications are open until 17 March 2017.

Why Care?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:21:04 GMT

It may sound counterintuitive to criticise a word like ‘care’ as it is difficult to envisage any negative connotations. Many, many charities and social sector organisations are involved in the provision of ‘care’ and I have no doubt that the staff of those organisation genuinely want the best for the people with whom they work. But I would question whether it is enough for effective social leaders to want to offer care to people, and if instead we should be striving to ensure that those people no longer need to be cared for by an organisation.

The very notion of professionally ‘caring’ for someone is inherently limiting - it can eliminate hope and aspirations. A courageous social leader should cast aside their professional ego and strive to make their services redundant; this can’t be done through administering care but by encouraging an organisational culture of ambition and adventure, of mitigated risk taking.

This approach comes with a certain amount of risk and we need to acknowledge that there are limits on an individual’s abilities. It is about giving people the same opportunities to flourish by being equitable, it is not about treating everyone the same: different people have different needs and need different types of support to have similar opportunities. In a time where virtuosity is seen as the minimum competency needed to engage in many activities, we must lead in a way that acknowledges that most activities have implicit value.

The trope of ‘social mobility’ suggests that there is a preferred position in society that we should all aspire to and that we can only reach it if we work hard enough. I challenge the notion that reaching for ‘social perfection’ is acceptable as a cultural norm and I suggest that there is a place for everyone in society to be themselves, and not be compelled to be reinvented as a social migrant. The flipside of social mobility is the implication that if someone is incapable of achieving the hallowed goal of being socially mobile, the best society can offer them is ‘care’: they offer no contribution to the greater good so all we can do is remove as much discomfort from their lives as possible.

I appreciate that challenging the notion of social mobility is an unfashionable stance as it criticises the notion of care. I am a proud, successful working class person. I don’t want to abandon my heritage to be seen as a success, and neither do I want to promote a binary offer of social mobility to the people with whom I work. As a social leader, I feel that supporting people to define their own criteria for a successful life takes significant courage, and it requires an approach that rejects the professional in favour of the human.

In my provocation piece, I offer ten ways in which social leaders can adopt this approach; it embraces the human in preference of the professional, and it sees people as having potential rather than problems. This isn’t the easiest approach to adopt as a social leader, but then when was anything worth doing easy?

Stuart Dexter is the CEO of the Daisy Chain Project and a 2017 Clore Social Leadership Fellow. He developed this blog and provocation piece as part of his Fellowship.

Please share your views and comments below, or you can contact Stuart on Twitter.

“So who runs this show?” Shared leadership and good governance

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:34:37 GMT

Lynne Berry, OBE, is Chair of Breast Cancer Now and becomes Chair of Sustrans in January 2018. She is Vice Chair of Cumberland Lodge, a trustee of UnLtd and was until recently deputy chair of the Canal and River Trust (formerly British Waterways) and a trustee of Pro Bono Economics. She is a visiting Professor at Cass Business School, City, University of London.

Who would have thought a musical about charity governance would pack in the crowds at London’s Donmar theatre? The play about Committee Proceedings in Parliament concerning Kids Company did. I even spotted the board of the Association of Chairs there, on their summer outing. Governance is a hot topic.

So too is leadership, and whilst (nearly) everyone knows that trustees are responsible for governance, their role in leadership is less clear. It ought to be obvious: after all they are the people who are legally responsible for the charity and, in smaller organisations, the ones who run them and do all the work.

However, what about where there are paid staff? Do trustees still have a leadership role? Are they still leaders when there is an expert CEO and a skilled senior executive team, employed for their capacity to inspire and to make things happen?

It used to seem so easy: the CEO ran the organisation and the Chair ran the board. However, with a renewed focus on governance and accountability the relationship between the leaders of an organisation needs to be both more nuanced and more overt. The new Charity Governance Code, together with the renewed focus on safeguarding and fundraising, mean it is vital to have an honest conversation about what the shared leadership of trustees and senior executives really looks like, and who is responsible for what.

Once, looking at my Chair and me (when I was a CEO), the Queen asked: ‘which of you actually runs this charity?’ I suspect we each thought we did. And in reality, Chairs do much more than run the board and CEOs, so much more than run the organisation. Where it works well, there is also a shared leadership role based on a joint vision, agreed values and clarity of roles.

This shared leadership seems to me to be vital because it sets the dial about fundamental issues like behaviours, attitudes to risk and approaches to innovation. This isn’t about undermining good governance and I think some of recent complaints that boards are turning into risk-free zones are unfounded. It doesn’t feel like that on the boards on which I sit, but then, the trustees and executive spend a great deal of time together thinking both about governance and grasping opportunities.

For great leadership, both trustees and executives need to be innovative and to think about accountability. For any charity to change the world, there must be a sense that taking risks is acceptable, that it’s ok to try, and maybe not get it right every time.

However, when it comes to governance, if it comes to the crunch, trustees are responsible for the charity and that must affect what they do when things go badly wrong. Because, although trustees and executives both have leadership roles, they are not actually both ‘running the show’. Their responsibilities are different. And it’s vital to be very clear about that.

Please share your comments and views below, or join the conversation on Twitter.

Developing the best business models to face the future

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:37:48 GMT

Richard Harries’s paper for Clore Social Leadership, Facing the Future, highlights the main challenges for sector leaders over the coming decades. Fiscal constraint, geo-political shocks and technological advances are changing the nature of social need, as communities tackle inequality and people live longer. At the same time state resources continue to shrink and the mantra doing more with less is stretched to breaking point.

When faced with these pressures many charity leaders will naturally ask: how are we going to find someone to pay for what we do in the future? However, to be able to respond effectively our sector needs to think more profoundly about business models, and not simply where replacement funding is coming from.

Many charities have had a hand to mouth existence. The job of raising money has not always been closely connected to the delivery of value. This disconnect between who pays and who benefits matters because when those who have been paying stop doing so, they are not the ones who immediately lose out.

Much has been made of the potential for social investment to help charities adapt to the changing financial reality. However, the hype about social investment has sometimes missed the point and the adaptation required is more fundamental than is often understood. Loans are not a substitutes for income which has been lost. Rather they are a tool that can help some charities earn more revenue in the future. In a model where you are trading, the link between who pays and who benefits is stronger; and this can help build resilience.

Therefore the question for leaders to ask is not ‘where is the money going to come from?’ but more profoundly, ‘what sort of business model is appropriate as we respond to these future challenges?’

One of our roles at Access is to design and fund capacity building programmes which aim to help charities make this sort of transition. We have consulted widely on what support is needed and the clear top two areas are around leadership and governance. (The others are impact management capabilities, finance and business modelling skills, marketing and improving the use of data.)

For executive leaders in the sector the challenge is often one of having the time to step away from the day to day and consider these questions in a supportive and stimulating environment. Similarly having the confidence to try something new, especially in an organisation with a long history of doing things the same way, can be daunting. Peer learning is one way these challenges can be addressed and is a key design principle for our programmes.

Engaging charity trustees in these questions is the next task. As Richard points out, there are nearly a million charity trustees in the UK, with an average age of 57. They come into their roles often passionate about the cause, but not necessarily with the skills and experience to recast the way a complex organisation operates. Furthermore, trustees are increasingly operating in a risk adverse environment. Negative headlines, declining public trust and an increasingly pro-active regulator are all factors which might encourage trustees to batten down the hatches. However in our sector risk works in two ways; and the consequences of inactivity can be just as bad as making mistakes.

Trustees need to be encouraged to embrace and manage risk as they help their executive leaders to look to the future and consider what business model is right for their charity. Once the business model is defined, the job of financing it will be much clearer; and there will be a good starting point to answer the answers which investors and funders will have.

Please share your views and comments below or on Twitter @CloreSocial. You can also follow Seb on @sebelsworth, and Access here @si_access.

Are leaders left to fend for themselves?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:44:28 GMT

This guest blog was written by Robert Laycock who supports the organisational, leadership and management development of not-for-profit organisations across the North East.

By not joining up development opportunities for leaders of social change are we leaving the majority of them to fend for themselves in increasingly challenging times?

Earlier this week I was leading a seminar at the North East Fundraising Conference targeting delegates considering becoming a trustee for the first time. My introduction outlined the scale of the task citing the number of charities and trustees nationally (165,000 and 850,000 respectively in England and Wales) and in the North East region (6,900 formally constituted not-for-profit organisations, further 7,500+ smaller ‘under the radar’ groups). These stats suggest we need somewhere in the region of 25,000+ trustees in the North East alone; double this number including committee positions within smaller unconstituted groups. We perhaps shouldn't be surprised, therefore, that attracting the right calibre and number of trustees is an issue for many organisations.

These stats also help us to understand the scale of the task for those of us who are passionate about leadership development within civil society.

I’m absolutely of the view that the challenges we face as we strive for outstanding governance across the North East, can only be addressed through collaborative action; identifying, sharing and spreading best practice. I believe we need a similarly joined-up approach to developing leaders.

Reflecting on my own development, I now recognise the gateways and interventions that made the difference, leading to big shifts in practice. Here’s my timeline:

1993-1999: self-taught leadership and management (artist-led/community projects)
1999: appointed Co-Director of established regional charity (1999-2011)
2001/02: completed accredited leadership and management development programme (Northern Cultural Skills Partnership – this programme came to an end around 2008)
2005/06: Common Purpose Matrix programme
2007: first trusteeship
2009/10, 2013/14: executive coaching
2016/17: certificate in coaching and mentoring (self-organised)
Particularly, I feel fortunate to have worked for Helix Arts, a charity committed to developing their people while I was in a critical phase in my development as a leader.

So what are we doing, collectively, to make sure our leaders of social change, at all stages of development, have access to the right type of support at the right time?

The good news is we have a reasonable range and diversity of opportunities currently available in the North East including, on my radar:

Clore Social Leadership’s Experienced Leader Programme: there are fully-funded* places for North East social leaders on this 12-month programme
Common Purpose
North East Together: Leaders Network for Social Change
Not for profit managers toolkit
School for Social Entrepreneurs
Yes We Can: Leadership and management for social change
Given the scale of the task, I think we need all of these programmes and initiatives, and many more.

My concern is how leaders navigate these opportunities to identify the support they need.

My call to action is to all of us working to develop leaders to find ways to align our programmes and initiatives, raise awareness and strengthen connections, in order to provide pathways of support - a mosaic of opportunities - for the many thousands of leaders who may struggle without it.

Who’s in?

Please share your comments below, or you can join the conversation on Twitter.

*With thanks to the Garfield Weston Foundation

Good leadership requires more than a vision. It requires trust.

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:50:53 GMT

David Green is director at Green Pepper Consulting and associate consultant at Action Planning.

Many people don’t trust banks or estate agents but they still use them; most don’t trust politicians, yet they still vote for them. But what about a charity? It needs to be more than good at what it does. It needs to convince funders, partners and the public that it is fundamentally trustworthy. So while good leadership is visionary and inspiring, a social leader also requires an understanding of their organisation’s unique nature and status in civil society.

According to a survey published in March this year, the public believes charities spend around 57% of their income on running costs, when in reality, typical running costs are just 14%. This image problem is of such concern that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations have even set up to explain how charities work.

But earning trust requires more than just a website. Financial integrity and an absence of conflicting interests should come first, but as I’ve argued before, investments should also be ethical. And social leaders need to ensure a level of genuine openness and transparency in dealing with the public which just hasn’t been the case in the sector thus far. Publishing the percentage of income spent on running costs will help. Perhaps too, we should heed the advice of those to also be made more readily available.

Of course, to function, an organisation needs people. So trust in the leadership from staff and volunteers is arguably just as vital as that of donors. As such, leaders should listen to and, above all, value and respect the contributions made by staff and volunteers. This may sound obvious, but to disregard this rather than inspire.

Indeed, leadership is people focused rather than purely organisational. In my experience staff and volunteers will respond when given a voice. So let them help shape how your organisation works and what it becomes. Ask, listen and respond, rather than simply tell. But don’t leave it to the annual away day. Make engaging with, and responding to staff and volunteers, part of your organisation’s culture.

Significantly, social leaders have a level of commitment and authenticity that often can’t be replicated in other sectors. This makes them well placed to promote trust. By being proactive, highlighting values, and demonstrating solidarity with those they are helping, social leaders add value to their message and to their organisation. A good leader will be a great advocate, demonstrating success, as well as being clear about where the money goes.

Trust is not an entitlement, nor should it be disposable. But to lead social change it is certainly a requirement. As the former chief executive of Centrepoint, Anthony Lawton, said to me recently: ‘What would happen if you took away trust? As a leader, you are the face of your organisation. But take away the trust of your team, your beneficiaries or the public, and you will soon be lost.’

Please share your comments about this blog below, or your can join the conversation on Twitter.

Why investing in our future leaders is vital

Thu, 22 Oct 2020 16:58:16 GMT

This guest blog was written by David Orr, the Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation.

Investing in the talent of our future leaders is vital for growing our organisations. Nobody quite knows what the future will look like but housing associations will no doubt need leaders that are adept in a range of skills.

In the future it will not be enough for organisations to simply provide a service and then step back. It is going to be a much more engaged world where people will be asking questions and expecting answers quickly - our young leaders will therefore need to be strategic thinkers and have a vision for a future that they in their organisations will be trying to craft. They will also need to be technically savvy and digitally aware, to understand the power of social media, and the potential for talking to people that comes from having a whole new range of communication channels.

Having said that, an engagement with the future starts not with technology but with creative thinking. Housing Associations have a clear ambition - to deliver up to 120,000 new homes a year, to be making an offer to people right across all different parts of the housing market – across different geographies and tenures. If we are to end the housing crisis, we need to be in a position to think imaginatively and creatively and be prepared to take some risks. Existing leaders have got where they are by being bold, by putting themselves forward and taking risks. Now we need to create a nurturing environment that makes it essential that young talented people will want to work in our business and want to be creative and bring their ideas to how we create that future.

As a chief executive, leader or a board in any organisation the ability to encourage people to question and challenge you is, at root, a statement of confidence in yourself. If you as a leader are committed to the future you are trying to create then you will want people to be challenging you and asking awkward questions because that's the best way to test your own thinking as well as testing theirs. It should not be an optional extra to be investing in talent - our future depends on housing associations being able to attract, retain and develop talented people.

To do this requires investment in those people. The National Housing Federation’s Young Leaders Experience on 19-20 September, provides a way for housing associations to invest in talent management and develop the skills they need in their future cohort of leaders. The heart of leadership is ultimately about creating and articulating a vision of the future that is better than the present. Young people are just as capable at doing that. They just need confidence and a bit of coaching to get them there.

Register your place for the Young Leaders Experience by visiting here and use the priority code YLE0917CL. Group discounts are also available – book 6 places and get the 7th free. Call 020 7067 1066 or email events@housing.org.uk to find out more.

A world without leadership development

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:53:31 GMT

Lisa Sofianos is an international leadership consultant and business author, she is the founder and Director of .

Measuring the value or impact of leadership development is a tricky, and not altogether satisfactory, pursuit. The more you dig into the subject the more slippery the idea becomes. When looking at the impact of leadership development on the behaviour of individual participants, perhaps as they return to the workplace, we may be able to identify important observable changes; returning participants may ask more questions instead of providing answers, they may work more collaboratively, engage more with their colleagues, that kind of thing. While these changes may be good and desirable, they are inevitably only part of the story. Firstly, to get a fuller picture of the impact of development we would have to be around to see all the changes taking place - requiring a level of omnipresence beyond the reach of most evaluators. Secondly, the story is partial because the new thinking that underpins observable changes in behaviour can run much deeper. The metaphor of an iceberg hiding so much more below the surface can hold true in this situation. In terms of this thinking finding its way to the surface and manifesting in behaviour or decision-making, the right conditions may need to be in place - a crisis, a big change programme or perhaps even a vacancy at the top – all triggers for the application of learning. And without some of these circumstances being in place, some of the most profound impacts of leadership development can remain invisible and dormant, and thought therefore not to exist, while they may in fact lie in waiting to pounce when the time is right.

Another spanner in the works of quantifying impact is the gap that exists between the theoretical models and concepts taught through leadership development, and the real and lived experience of leaders. By this I mean that the cutting-edge ideas and frameworks that may be passed on in teaching, should not be understood as representing a guaranteed formula for success. Nor would it be reasonable to expect them to be carried out to the letter. What the keen-eyed evaluator may look for in the application of models and methods in the workplace just may not be there. And this is not because the leadership development investment hasn’t been useful, rather it may be because the participant absorbs them into their own knowledge and experience, and applies them in very different and sometimes unexpected ways. The line of sight between input and output, for some of the best reasons, may not be very clear; the ‘audit trail’ a little muddy.

So, it is perhaps worth acknowledging that the business of evaluation is complex and for this reason it may be more useful, if not less painful, when examining the value of leadership development, to imagine instead a world without it. To paint the picture of how organisations might operate if it weren’t there.

At first I suspect that this world might look very similar to ours. It would still be filled with a huge variety of enterprises busily engaged in their chosen activity. Organisations would still operate through hierarchies of one sort or another, and ‘leadership’ would still get done. From a distance it may be indiscernible from the current situation. But closer up, we may see some meaningful differences.

Let us start with one possible consequence, that without leadership development, organisations run the risk of becoming cul-de-sacs of knowledge. Importantly, all enterprises are engaged in competition; for resources, clients, expertise, assets, know-how and so on. And this is not an activity that is the preserve of the private sector. Competition may be less acute according to the sector to which we belong, but you can be sure that it is alive, well and driving a lot of behaviour in organisations. And whereas competition has the effect of keeping expertise and strategies under wraps, in order to protect a competitive edge, leadership development, in contrast, has a commitment to the exact opposite; to exposing new ideas, sharing wisdom, making sense of what works, and learning from experience. If it were not for the work of leadership developers and strategy analysts, who would we look to in order to make sense of and learn the lessons from the collapse of Borders, the bankruptcy of high street giant Woolworths, the rise of corporate universities, the leadership challenges of massive open online courses (MOOCS), the sharing economy models of working (Uber, airbnb), the new tech companies and so on? And if you think the answer lies in leaders doing research for themselves or reading business books, how many books a year do you think your senior leaders could get through alongside the day job?

Without leadership development we may see organisations becoming idiosyncratic, having been built upon foundations of commonsense thinking where faults and weaknesses become compounded and areas of unawareness and neglect left to fester. Folklore, rather than evidenced-based lessons drawn from a number of close and far away sources, might create an unbalanced and uninformed view about what good leadership constitutes. A not invented here approach to management might cause multiple re-inventions of the wheel, rather than taking a more efficient route of borrowing ideas from those have done this before.

In the absence of a common language of leadership and a shared set of organisational principles, collaboration could be severely hampered. Time and effort would need to be diverted to mapping and understanding unfamiliar systems and processes, and in our fast changing environment this could lead to missed opportunities.

For me one of the most important roles that leadership development can play for leaders is to provide ventilation to their thinking through sharing experiences, inputting new ideas from the cutting edge and holding a space for them to experiment and learn from experience in safety. The risk of creating an organisational cul-de-sac, or even a gated-community, without leadership development, is transformed into a thriving modern city with multiple crossroads, roundabouts and intersections that allow for ideas, experiences and learning to circulate.

Another consequence of the removal of leadership development relates to the pace of change in the operating environment and the risk that without assistance and rapid learning, organisations will struggle to stay relevant. Our paradigms of leadership, rooted in the past as they are, are no longer adequate for dealing with the “new normal” and leadership pioneers like Prof. Ronald Heifetz, with his Adaptive Leadership model, have made huge strides in constructing a leadership response that is more fit for purpose. That Command and Control leadership is now largely consigned to times of acute crisis isn’t new news to anyone, but would this ever be the case without leadership development? Where else would such concerted thought be devoted to the business of how we lead and then shared in service of helping leaders succeed? In a world without leadership development, ideas and traditions may long outstay their usefulness without the challenge presented by thought leaders.

Notwithstanding the changes swirling around externally in the operating environment, organisations are facing major change from within. The challenges of reconciling an aging population with rapid technological advancements are already being felt by workforces that span Baby Boomers and Digital Natives. It’s tempting to wonder if the fate of HMV would have been different if the senior team could have had a useful conversation with their younger store employees about how their generation consumes music. How much more seriously might they have taken the phenomenon of downloadable music if they had done so?

Rapid technological advancement is here to stay, and Gordon Moore’s assertion that processing speed doubles every two years has held true for decades. In fact the timescale is now closer to 18 months. Leaders on the brink of paradigm-shifting innovations such as the application of Artificial Intelligence will need to look far beyond themselves in order to make sense of the implications and impacts.

New technology conditions the behavior of workforces in other ways too. People have grown used to accessing a seemingly unlimited store of knowledge and information through the internet and are exercising a greater level of engagement and autonomy in their lives. They question experts; shop around; bypass intermediaries; and they are beginning to expect similar levels of involvement in their workplace. This may demand from leaders a new approach to the distribution of executive power and accountability and directly challenge the hierarchical structures that they have grown up with. Pioneers such as Timpsons, with their “Upside Down Leadership” approach, are already working to find ways of unlocking the benefits of this cultural shift, although this would be outside of the awareness of most leaders without the shared learning commitment of leadership developers.

Leaders are faced with steep learning curves on all sides as they grapple with a complex and volatile world. Often they are breaking new ground as the emerging effects of technology, climate change and shifting demographics present novel challenges. In this context it is seldom enough to rely on the relatively small store of experience and expertise that can be accrued by a senior team in order to meet these challenges and thrive. Leaders need shortcuts to best practice; new frames of reference and provocations to generate new thinking; and a reflective space to meet with peers to make sense of it all. In this way I believe that leadership development is one of our best tools to engage with the “new normal”. To return to the beginning of this piece, and the thorny subject of measuring impact, perhaps we should concede the point that leadership development has a profound and meaningful contribution to make to the business of leading. With this framing principle we should be directing much more of our effort away from proving that value and much more of it towards creating the conditions for success.

Finding common ground through collaboration

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:57:25 GMT

2017 Clore Social Fellows Stuart Dexter and Joanna McCreadie share their reflections about the commonalities and differences between their organisations, and their plans to collaborate.

Stuart Dexter, Chief Executive of Daisy Chain

And so it came to pass, four intrepid explorers finished their board meeting and set off to cross the border in search of a half decent curry and some ideas of how to integrate animals into their work. The coalescing of like-minds felt like the start of something bigger, inspiring all involved to dare to aim high. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, let’s go back to the beginning…

Stuart was telling Joanna about his new role at an autism charity, Daisy Chain. Joanna said that she’d be interested in learning more about Daisy Chain’s use of animals. Joanna is CEO of , a residential school in Scotland for children with multiple and complex needs. They have just started to keep some animals at the school, and thus plans were made for a team from Seamab to visit the Daisy Chain farm.

We got to know each other over a fiery jalfrezi and bountiful thalis and began to realise how well aligned our approach to working with children and young people who have faced significant challenges were. What become apparent was that a youth and community work approach was beneficial in engaging with children and young people for whom mainstream schooling just didn’t work. We learnt of a shared appetite to take risks but, most of all, we learnt of a shared value of being ‘human’ when working with people. We learned that we were not afraid to show that we care.

An early start followed and we talked in more detail about the two organisations and realised further the significant commonalities. Fortified, we had a look around the Daisy Chain centre and toured the grounds, ending at the Daisy Chain farm.

All was going well until our Scottish friends were introduced to Daisy Chain’s skinny pigs. For those of you unaware, skinny pigs are a mutant, hairless guinea pig. Usually, once the initial revulsion has passed people find them cute. Alas, for one of the Seamab team the revulsion intensified, eliciting a surprisingly strong reaction.

We split into two teams; Jody and Alistair stayed on the farm with Michelle, Daisy Chain’s Farm Manager and Stuart, Gary and Joanna retired once more to Stuart’s office to talk future plans and building developments.

So what did we learn and does this partnership have a future? To the latter question the answer is almost certainly yes. Daisy Chain has been invited to Seamab for a return visit, an invitation we intend to accept. We’re also considering opportunities for a formal partnership project.

And the learning? That there is an approach to the work, a set of values and a value in people that we have in common. That a desire to aim high and innovate, to have aspirations and not accept the orthodoxy as the only way things can be done goes a long way when working with some of the most vulnerable members of society.

And we had a nice curry.

Joanna McCreadie, Chief Executive of Seamab

It’s not that often that the Seamab team has had the chance to visit other charities, or have open and in depth discussions about the joy and challenges of working with children. Our focus is usually on what is happening now, and what we are planning to do next in Seamab.

One of the unanticipated strengths of the Clore Social Fellowship is the opportunity for teams from separate charities to engage with each other, learn from each other and potentially work together. Talking with Stuart after an action learning set, it became clear that while our two charities deliver different services, we share a commitment to finding, and implementing interesting ways of working, always with the aim of making a positive difference. As well, having recently rescued some chickens, at Seamab we were beginning to think that we were on to a new idea of having more animals around to support the children. Of course, Daisy Chain have already had this idea, and added pretty impressive bells and whistles, so we thought we could borrow some of their thinking and expertise….

Our first impressions on arrival at Daisy Chain were of an open, welcoming space and buildings. There was a mixture of new development and old farm buildings. We were all really impressed by the services Daisy Chain offers, and their approach to how they support children, young people, and families. It was obvious this is an organisation interested in how they can make a practical difference. There was an acceptance of the challenges of this and an interest in continuing to develop and improve.

While the farm is wonderful – it’s not an end in itself. Rather, caring for the animals and spending time with them, supported by skilled adults, is a positive experience that has multiple benefits for children and young people across all aspects of their lives.

And the skinny pigs…well, it’s the first time any of us has seen our colleague move that fast (away from the skinny pig) and maintain that kind of distance (clearly he thought it would be able to leap out the farm manager's arms) or deny so vociferously any fear. As supportive colleagues we respected his feelings and haven’t mentioned it since – those skinny pig photos that found their way into his office were, honestly, a surprise to all of us.

What next? Stuart and I think we (and our teams) share values and a philosophy about practice. We can feel that there will be opportunities to learn from each other, and potentially, work together. We’re already planning to purchase some pigs for the children at Seamab, and have the offer of expert advice from Daisy Chain’s farm manager. Our next step is a visit to Seamab by the Daisy Chain team. We think we can see that curry and raise it brilliant fish and chips in our local hostelry!

Please share your views and comments below, or join the conversation on Twitter.

Leading Assets Together

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:00:01 GMT

Colin Falconer is Director of an innovation consultancy.

Asset-based philosophy has an Aristotle-like emphasis on the ‘what’ we should develop in order to build a ‘good life’. I believe doing more than react to or prevent disadvantage is something that can help invigorate our social leadership.

‘Asset-based’ means embracing capability and shifting the focus from what is lacking to what is working – from Strengths-based Practice and Asset-Based Community Development, to Appreciative Inquiry, the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and Advantaged Thinking. These approaches range from working with an individual’s strengths, to mobilising resources within a community, to maximising opportunities for systemic change. What unites them as ‘asset-based’ is a belief in relational solutions and a passion for looking beyond meeting problems towards nurturing possibilities.

I help organisations apply asset-based innovations, including providing advice for ’s Youth Fund. Since asset-based theory is not about one-size-fits-all, I have worked with Paul Hamlyn Foundation to introduce a glossary of ‘where’ different asset-based approaches are likely to thrive. These translate into ‘assetspots’ that highlight the of what and how organisations deliver, alongside the influence organisations apply to wider policies and perceptions. Exploring them, four leadership challenges emerge.

The first challenge is in growing ‘identity-positive’ organisations. In particular, this refers to what and how vision and values that invest in enabling good, and how they are communicated. It means more, however, than articulating an inspirational vision for social transformation. Leadership must also define and share the ethos by which transformation actually happens. Who you are, and what you say, increasingly matters.

The second challenge is being open to work ‘with-people’. This means empathetic leadership, sensitive to how far the people an organisation supports are involved across governance, decision making and service design, as well as in delivery. People-powered organisations must have leaders who trust people as citizens of change – not just clients or customers. Openness requires an equalising relationship.

The third challenge is in the operational and strategic ‘know-how’ to optimise the various processes and programmes that nurture assets. In other words, leaders who understand the significance of building purposeful culture and technology, from staff performance systems to project logic models. Organisations that continue to ‘cope’ with management and delivery styles that do not flourish skills and resources will struggle to sustain asset-based endeavours longer term.

The fourth challenge is in determining what impact means. It can never be enough to capture outputs and outcomes required by contracts, if they do not match the mission we believe in or the complex narrative of people’s lived experience. Equally, we cannot be satisfied to evidence what we do just to attract more funding, if we do not also learn from what happens in order to evolve our offer. Treasuring thoughtful measurement and practical insight defines our capacity for progress.

Exploring these challenges through the Clore Social Leaders’ Capabilities Framework, the ‘generous collaborator’ stands out to me as an underrated capability to recognise assets in each other and to harness them collectively. When it comes to good social change, we best lead assets together.

Please share you comments below, or join the conversation on Twitter.

Connecting in an increasingly social world an essential skill for social leaders

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:02:58 GMT

This blog was written jointly by Claire Haigh and Julia Wolfendale from Collaborate Out Loud. Together they create social spaces for public service innovation.

We live in a social world, a world where we are surrounded by technology that allows us to communicate and connect like never before. Successful social leaders are able to authentically and skilfully use not just the digital tools at their fingertips, but to also bring people together to form communities that can make a difference in the places we live.

Making connections across boundaries is key for social leadership. Some of the formal constraints of traditional working literally get in the way. As we move towards widening our social connections across social media platforms, we are seeing the opportunity to include our ‘work allies and work friends’ into our real lives. What would happen if we truly brought our whole selves to work? Perhaps this could help us to transcend the boundaries of hierarchy and formal structures, sidestep silos and really connect around shared interests - inside and outside of work - through shared personal values and interest in mutual outcomes.

Is this a modern workplace dilemma? Have we been busy crafting a work persona that is so different to our real selves that we struggle to let people in and see who we really are, what we care about, and what we have to offer? Do we hold back our potential to connect fully with each other at work because of this? If we are working in public service, is it not important to show we have real lives too? Would this help build our affinity with the people we serve? Would this help develop the authenticity and credibility that is needed in leaders today?

We think so. We have been developing ways to help social leaders connect with who they really are as people first, and then around what skills, knowledge, connections, abilities and interests that they have to offer beyond the role and job description.

People naturally seek connections. We are hardwired to connect, although we might fight it at work and hide behind the work role, finding ourselves segregated in isolation, distanced by a fear of difference. With more transparency and authenticity in public service, we could develop greater empathy and rapport, and connect more wholly with others. We could unlock the potential of people in public services by connecting as people who live in a community who have chosen to serve a community.

Embracing difference, connecting across boundaries, seeking out the unusual suspects and having surprising conversations help us to innovate and collaborate better. If we want to truly innovate we need to collaborate not only with those around us who are our trusted friends, but with those who we don’t know, who are different and are removed from our inner circle. Why not just have a coffee with someone you don’t really know, or follow some new people on Twitter?

Please share your comments below, or join the conversation on Twitter.

Social justice is not the preserve of the social sector

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:04:56 GMT

Increasing awareness of civic duty is a core aim of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation report, Rethinking Relationships: Phase One of the Inquiry into the Civic Role of Arts Organisations.

Society has become fragmented – a lot of the things that used to bring us together don’t exist anymore. We have reached a point in society where our relationship with our phones and technology often subsume our personal relationships, both with each other and within our communities.

But human beings are social creatures. We are hardwired to interact socially with one another, and looking at recent political and societal events, we can all see an upsurge of people coming together. This was clearly demonstrated by the outreach of community support following the London and Manchester terror attacks, and after the fire at Grenfell Tower where we bore witness to the touching efforts of people reaching out in solidarity. People are not waiting for those in positions of authority to take appropriate action, instead they are using their own initiative to carry out their personal civic role.

Gulbenkian is conducting an Inquiry into the civic role of arts organisations. Their new report was developed alongside a panel of leaders, mostly from arts organisations, who provided recommendations as to how social and arts organisations can work together to understand the civic role arts organisations play, and what more is possible.

I am a member of this panel - I joined to add a voice from the social sector, particularly given that the Inquiry is largely focused on arts organisations. There are clear synchronicities in the work of arts and social organisations, but I wanted to understand what more could be done to create a common voice and unify cross-purpose initiatives between and beyond our respective sectors.

I say this because I feel that arts organisations, particularly the publicly funded ones, can do more to support the people in society who need it most. Arts organisations have a vast foothold across the UK in the form of community centres, theatres, libraries, museums, galleries and more, and this gives us amazing opportunities to heal the broken parts of our social fabric. Clearly they can’t do it alone, and collaborations with social leaders are vital. Thank you Gulbenkian, for highlighting some great examples, but let's not believe that these partnerships are common.

The social sector exists to create a fairer society, promote equality and fight social injustice. Yet as evidenced by the aforementioned recent events which brought communities together, what we stand for is not the preserve of the social sector, or any other sector.

It is incumbent upon us all to create deeper connections with one another on personal, organisational, cross-sector and a community-wide level, and this includes debating the issues that really matter.

So today I am asking all Clore fellows and interested parties, from the arts and social sector, to join in the debate. Let us know what you think. How do we get more arts organisations to engage with local charities to maximise our reach, particularly within disadvantaged and poorly served communities? And how do we get more social leaders to offer support, and also challenge other sectors to work together?

Let’s find multiple ways to collaborate, harness solidarity and become more unified in our civic role.

Share you comments below or join the conversation on Twitter.

The Grenfell Tower volunteers showed us real leadership

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:07:39 GMT

Vyla L. Rollins is a member of our Board of Trustees and Executive Director at the London Business School's Leadership Institute.

Many individuals, myself included, are still processing the events emerging from Grenfell Tower on 14th June, which has been reported as the deadliest fire in Britain for more than a century. Given the uncertainty already created by other political and terrorist events in the past six months, the Grenfell Tower fire has added to the sorrow, loss and feeling of ambiguity already sinking into the heart and souls of many in the UK, and beyond.

I can remember waking up to Radio 4 at 6am on the morning of the 14th to early reports of a fire in a tower block in North Kensington. As I lay in bed for the next hour and a half, the rolling news reports were stark, fuelled by BBC eyewitness accounts of what was unfolding. Then, over the next 83 hours, stories of the aftermath of the blaze started to emerge. However, in the dark timbre of those reports (amongst which were many accusations and questioning of the paucity of government and local council response) there was one word that resounded for me like a drumbeat. This word, I sense, also helped comfort and give hope to those impacted by the fire at a time of deep despair and loss. The word was ‘volunteers’.

‘Volunteers from the local community.’

‘Volunteers from the Red Cross.’

‘Volunteers from Shelter.’

‘Volunteers from the music, entertainment and sport industries.’

‘Volunteers from the educational sector.’

‘Volunteers from the far reaches of Britain.’

And volunteers from other organisations that many had never heard of. They came forward. And they served. In any way that they could. Shifting. Sorting. Packing. Coordinating. Facilitating. Listening. Comforting. Embracing.

One of my mentors, Ron Heifetz, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School, describes leadership as, ‘taking responsibility for hard problems beyond having formal or informal authority.’ He goes on to state that leadership is a process of understanding, exchanging information, working together-and that learning is required as part of that process. He also states it is not an easy or glamorous process. It is adaptive; it requires listening, watching and sensing and using the information gained from those activities to inform action. I strongly agree with him and, with this belief, am charged to point out that if you think about it, we were all witnesses to what real leadership looks like on the 14th June, and in the days that followed.

Not necessarily in actions made by those in positions of formal authority (offers of cash into bank accounts, helping to facilitate re-housing, etc.) although I cannot discount these as being helpful. But by the responses of the many volunteers – helping those impacted by this tragedy to claim their cash because many don’t have bank accounts; calming others troubled by being offered housing 200 miles away when their livelihoods and educational institutions for their children are in London; soothing and supporting those still in shock when offered re-housing in another high rise tower too reminiscent of the one that came so close to claiming their lives on the morning of the 14th June.

A cacophony of news stories of grassroots leadership exhibited by volunteers continues to emerge and find their space in the 27/7 news cycle. Many stories linked to individuals who are not in positions of formal authority. Leaders like a woman named Mercy. Mercy, who lives near the Tower, learned that two of her friends died in the fire and yet she still came to help. She said: ‘This is what they would want me to do, be out in the community. I don't want to take the day off, this is where I belong.’ I ask, is that not a mark of true leadership?

It is individuals like Mercy, who possess the spirit and will to serve, that I feel deserves our support and attention. And if other individuals possessing a spirit and will to serve also have the aspiration to equip themselves more formally, to bolster the impact and effectiveness their efforts can have within the community and organisations, then we should be ready to help. Ready to help them become the most effective leaders they can be. I, like my colleagues at Clore Social Leadership, am passionate about supporting and investing in sourcing, creating and delivering leadership development interventions for people in the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors. And the events at Grenfell Tower are one reason why.

I believe social sector leaders are the ones we’ll more than likely need and will increasingly look to in the future, to lead us through some of the most difficult and unprecedented social, community and organisational challenges of the 21st Century. So why wouldn’t you support efforts to develop leaders in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector, in any way that you can?

Please share your views and comments below, or you can join the conversation with Vyla on Twitter.

Ethical Leadership: Is the outcome more important than the means?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:11:20 GMT

David Green is director of Green Pepper Consulting, a social enterprise working with the third sector.

In the corporate world, ethics and success are not always synonymous. If they were, then we wouldn’t have activists such as Naomi Klein, or organisations like Greenpeace. But it isn’t just big oil or multinational mining companies that should be concerned with ethics.

Indeed, I recall the furore in 2013 when Comic Relief were found, at the time, to be investing in the likes of tobacco and armaments.

The fact remains that with a constant pressure to deliver, it can be tempting to push ethics aside. The outcome, it seems, then becomes more important than the means.

But does this actually matter if the result is the same?

The only ethical response, surely, is “yes it does”. It matters because no organisation operates outside of society. Indeed, for the voluntary and community sector (VCS), creating a better society is very much central to the role. So accounting for how you do this is important; and the reasons why should be clear:

Greater public trust and confidence
Credibility with local communities and the sector
Better governance
Inspiring loyalty, motivation, and the engagement of staff and volunteers
More attractive to funders, donors and social partners

Of course the vast majority of VCS organisations spend their money with care; and e. But a wise VCS leader will want to embed ethics into the organisation’s culture at every level, from trustees, staff and volunteers, to its relations with beneficiaries, funders and other stakeholders.

This means not only putting the organisation’s values and mission centre stage, but also incorporating ethics into the leader’s own role.

A good place to start is with effective communications, consulting with staff and volunteers, engaging in external networks, and taking time to explain the organisation’s message, both internally and externally.

It also means adopting good and effective systems. Ethics should be embedded into recruitment, relationships, and practices. Creating an inclusive climate for staff, volunteers and beneficiaries to thrive, to speak up, and to develop will not only build trust and reinforce the organisation’s values, but help ensure sustainability in the longer term.

The leader’s personal behaviour must also reflect the organisation’s ethical values. Shouting and bullying, setting unrealistic targets, keeping people in the dark – none of these are compatible with ethical leadership. Instead empathy, honesty and respect should prevail.

Underpinning all of this should be basic principles of trust, honesty and integrity. As such, a commitment to model individual behaviour on the Nolan principles on standards in public life seems appropriate.

Clearly none of this is new, or particularly difficult to achieve. But it can be forgotten. So leaders should remind themselves, particularly when tough times need bold decisions, that how they get results is just as important to everyone involved, as the results themselves.

Please share your comments about this blog below, or you can join the conversation with David on Twitter.

Homelessness is Caused by a Mental Health Condition...Ours

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:15:52 GMT

This blog introduces Athol Halle's full provocation piece which he developed as part of his Clore Social Leadership 2016 Fellowship.

Are we in denial about homelessness? The facts are out there - homelessness kills you. The average of death of a rough sleeper in England is 47, with one person dying whilst sleeping on the streets of London every t wo weeks.

Homelessness is growing. The number of people sleeping on our streets more than doubling since 2010.

Services are shrinking. Despite the rise in rough sleeping, there has been 20% reduction in the number of homeless hostel beds since 2010.

A lack of empathy – do we have a Personality Disorder? As a society, we know of the serious harms that homelessness causes to people, and yet we lack compassion and allow it to grow, before our eyes, under our feet. ‘An impairment in empathy: lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others.’ This diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder fits us well.

We waste our precious resources – is this self-harm? People are society’s most precious resource. Take Jimmy Carlson, whose Memorial Service was recently held at St Martins-in-the-Fields in Trafalgar Square. Jimmy spent over 20 years as homeless. He then spent the next 20 years as an inspirational advocate for the rights of homeless people, contributing to national policy, setting up client involvement groups and creating social clubs for people in recovery from alcohol and drug problems. On receiving his OBE in 2012 Jimmy said 'You would have walked over me in the street 15 years ago and thought I was a lost cause, just another drunk. However, I picked myself up and turned my life around and I have gone on to make a decent contribution to my community. Rough sleepers you see on the street today – with the right support they have a lot to offer too. Never give up on anyone.'

When we allow people to rot away on the margins of society, we all suffer from the lack of contribution people have to offer. A 2012 government study estimated up to £1 billion was spent as a result of homelessness across all government departments. We waste our money on dealing with the consequences rather than addressing the causes of homelessness. ‘Deliberate injury to oneself, typically as a manifestation of a psychological or psychiatric disorder.’ This dictionary definition for ‘Self-Harm’ fits us well.

There is a complex relationship between homelessness and mental health, on an individual level, both cause and consequence. Heriot Watt University’s in-depth research showed that for the majority of people, mental health problems preceded homelessness; whilst the experience of homelessness is clearly damaging - Homeless Link show that 80% of people in homelessness services had some form of mental health issue, diagnosed or undiagnosed. However, the stark truth is that if you are homeless you are nine times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.

Denial? Lack of empathy? Self-harm? As a society, when it comes to homelessness, we have a mental health problem. Acknowledging we have a problem is the first step to solving it.

Athol Hallé is Chief Executive of Groundswell - this piece is also published on their website.

Courage: lead by channeling child-like zest for challenge

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:17:50 GMT

In the last blog, Born leaders – you need to regress to progress, I explored the quality of curiosity and how we could benefit from learning to value this quality as we face increased leadership challenges in our sector. Now, I'd like to think about another child-like quality: courage.

When I was nine years old, my brother and salvaged four large pram wheels from the local tip. I was so excited – after what felt like months of searching we had finally found the only missing elements to our home-made go kart.

We fixed the axles to the old wooden door, secured an old blue rope as a steering device to the front axle and headed for the hill. The hill was notorious, it’s where anybody who was anybody went when it snowed. They took it on with bin lids, dinner trays, rubber rings, and the occasional sledge. But this was the height of the summer holidays, so we were going to set a new standard of bravery by tackling the hill on a homemade go kart. When we got back at school, we'd be heroes! I sat at the top of the hill, gripping the steering rope so tight it was sore. Wearing nothing more than my shell suit to protect me, I gave the nod to my brother to push me over the precipice. My heart was racing so fast, like it knew something that I didn’t…

I’m told that I made it to the bottom; I don’t remember it as well my brother. The last I recall he was shouting at me to use the soles of my plimsolls as brakes. Ah yes, brakes! Perhaps the pram wheels weren’t the only thing missing…

This might not be the most inspiring story to demonstrate my point but thinking back, I can't help but be a bit envious of my own courage. Coming on for thirty years later I wouldn’t dream of returning to the hill with a homemade Go Kart. I have learned to be cautious, to assess risk and make informed decisions based on the information that’s available to me.

Have I become too cautious? Does this same risk assessment prevent me from being brave, from speaking my truth in situations where I may be a lone voice, and from making unpopular decisions even though I know with confidence that they’re the right decision for the organisation?

In trying to find an example of where I have demonstrated courage recently, I asked some of my colleagues for examples of where I have led with courage. This feedback revealed the big differences that I have effected as a result of being willing to take appropriate risks, to challenge the status quo, and to make tough decisions. The feedback also revealed that courage manifests in small moments, like in being more open and vulnerable with my colleagues.

As our sector faces increasing challenges, both in number and complexity, it’s vital that we lead with the courage of our childhood, and true to our authentic selves.

In the next blog I’ll explore the quality of authenticity and how being true to our real self can enable us to be more courageous.

This blog was developed as part of Mark's 2016 Clore Social Fellowship Programme and originally published on Third Force News as part of a blog series.

Mark Kelvin is programme director at the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and a 2016 Clore Social Fellow.

Leaders Now event with Toby Young

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:21:17 GMT

It’s not every morning you get to facilitate a conversation with someone who sparks a marmite reaction across the social sector, so when Shaks Ghosh, CEO of Clore Social Leadership asked me to facilitate a breakfast leadership conversation with Toby Young, I jumped at the chance.

The Leaders Now events series is run in partnership by Clore Social Leadership and the House of St Barnabas. It brings together great speakers and leaders from the social sector to inspire, encourage debate and new thinking, and to provide an opportunity to network and meet other leaders.

April’s session featured a conversation with Toby Young, the journalist activist and reluctant leader of the free schools movement. However, he is so much more than that; an accomplished social commentator, journalist at the Spectator, former CEO of the West London Free School Trust, Brexiteer, published author, food judge, cyclist, father of four, keen QPR supporter, and the man most likely to polarise debate about education, freedom of choice, self-determination and the class system.

The night before the conversation, Radio 4 broadcasted Toby’s most recent programme, The Rise and Fall of the Meritocracy, where Toby asked whether his father, Michael Young’s dark prophesy is correct, if your genes determine your future, and whether the Brexit and Trump votes signal the death knell for the popular political vision of a modern meritocracy.

Suffice to say, as a former Director at the Young Foundation, the programme sparked a heated debate (aka row) in my household and I confess I carried this apprehension into the House of St Barnabas. With 40 people in the room from a variety of sectors including education, local government, heritage and more, Toby led us through in what I might call his reluctant leadership journey; from the denizens of NYC to having 150 people standing in his living room wanting to set up a school.

Obviously what goes on on tour, stays on tour but I do have permission to share Toby’s 9 tips for leadership which I surmised from his talk:

Admit when you are wrong
Look confident while doing it
Remain steadfast in purpose as it will steer your course
Build a thick skin
Having a strong moral purpose will help you get the best of people
Being engaged in a common venture with like minded people gives meaning to life in a way money and status does not
Co-opt the tools that work regardless of where the come from.
Sometimes being belligerent in bunker needs to happen to get you through tough times but don’t stay there too long
Collaborative decision making is miles better than individual decision making

When I read them back to him, Toby said, ‘when I hear them like that, it’s bleedin’ obvious really - I don’t know why it’s taken me so long to realise them.’

For me, Toby reflected a style of leadership I often see in movements - activists that have started with a passionate belief around fixing a perceived injustice who have realised that to go far, it helps to go with others. No one ever said that social change was a quick fix and Toby Young I think, would be the first to admit that.

Share your views below, or join the conversation on Twitter.

Esther Foreman is the CEO of the The Social Change Agency, connect with her on Twitter.

I believe: The trouble with confirmation bias

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:26:36 GMT

Jo Youle is the CEO of Missing People, a charity that offers a lifeline to the 250,000 people who run away and go missing each year in the UK.

I don’t like making mistakes. I don’t think many of us do. I don’t like getting things wrong since I’m the sort of person who works hard to get things right. I’m pre-programmed to think round corners, to not let the wool be pulled over my eyes.

But it could be worse. What if I make a mistake and don’t even realise I’m making it until it’s too late? What if we take our thinking, our organisations and other people’s lives off down the wrong road, and realise too late we’re in a cul-de-sac with no fuel to get us back on the right road?

Not so long ago, I made this kind of mistake. I just got the wrong idea in my head and blithely followed myself, down the wrong road.

A close friend’s mum died. I moved heaven and earth to be there for the funeral. I did a ‘belt and braces’ check on the address and was reassured it was the only crematorium in town. I arrived well over an hour early; checked with the guy working in the graveyard that I was in the right place.

I started to feel uneasy about 1pm, when the service was due to start in 15 minutes and no one had turned up. That guy I’d first spoken to asked, 'anything I can help with?' I told him what I was waiting for and he said, 'Oh, you want the crematorium, ‘love’, 10 miles from here, this is the cemetery'.

I did a slow motion fall apart; 10 miles from where I needed to be it was game over. I cried. Gutted that I wouldn’t be there for my friend. I had sort of known way before, that something wasn’t right. I hadn’t listened to my instinct. I’d simply got the wrong ‘idea’ in my head and everything I did, googled, and saw from that moment forward merely confirmed to me I was in the right place. A bad case of confirmation bias.

It’s a pervasive thing, this confirmation bias. And all the more annoying since I’ve been ‘on the watch’ for it since being warned about this for newbie, and oldie CEO’s. We all know about huge companies slowly leading themselves to disaster by distorted realities, and this, even when all the data and information suggested a different picture and a different road to take. Take the now stereotypical examples: Xerox, Kodak, Blackberry.

Think on the sad demise of Kids Company. I’ll always remember visiting one of their vibrant, happily noisy centres in north London. A piano lesson underway on the Coldplay-donated piano in reception, counselling rooms, play areas, needlework. Creativity, friendship and care everywhere, providing the sort of environment many lucky children expect and have at home. This, a charity where income climbed from £2m to £23m over 10 years, before it came publically crashing down, in 2015.

The signs must have been there for a long time. The numbers must have painted a picture. There must have been warning signs. Perhaps they were obscured by hopefulness, optimism, and a divine sense of purposefulness. Perhaps a successful history was being used to predict a successful future. The post-collapse parliamentary investigation concluded that the charity had been run according to 'wishful thinking'.

Another (nameless) charity was saved from the brink only by a newcomer. From someone not invested in the ‘story’ or the people of the charity. For ten years the charity had not changed anything in finance. The team were well respected and friendly. They quietly got on with their work, undisturbed. The treasurer and the senior finance bod got on well. The reserves pot was healthy.

The newbie CEO saw a different picture. A financial strategy that would mean doom. A picture the treasurer couldn’t see even when it was painted in front of them; a human being simply not wanting to believe difficult truths about people and the organisation they cared about so much.

But new people aren’t always the answer either. A familiar story? Recruiting someone on a strong belief bolstered by a long recruitment process, that they are a good and competent egg. And from that point on, every piece of work, every behaviour, feeds this same belief. The ‘good egg peg’. And all this despite evidence to the contrary. Yes, you might hear or see some negatives. You might listen to (but not hear) some politely shared concerns from others. But surely your own instincts, your years of experience count for something.

There might be a slow dawning and then the consequences. A slowness to respond. A team disheartened, and worried. Time lost. Trust gone. There were some important lessons to learn. Not least, how quickly a team can disintegrate with a less than competent egg at the helm and the importance of not believing yourself too much.

We create worlds for ourselves that confirm our own thinking and beliefs. Our own, personalised echo chambers. We select newsfeeds, watch the ‘bits’ we like on catch up TV. We select ‘our sort of people’ to follow whilst Facebook selects stuff for us - algorithmed around our web browsing. And as for Twitter, we make it so bespoke I’m sure most people could be psychologically profiled purely on those people they choose to follow.

Setting off with the wrong hypotheses can have the most serious consequences. Avid followers of miscarriage of justice programmes: podcasts Serial and Undisclosed and Netflix hit Making A Murderer will have learned about injustice when a (wrong) hypothesis rules in evidence when it supports the theory, and out when it doesn’t. It can be devastatingly life changing.

Reflect on this observed phenomenon. Student sailors under pressure. Entering a harbour or approaching a coastline for the first time, in the dark. Trying to correctly identify the flashing patterns of different colours lights, all flashing a different number of times and lengths to guide them safely home. The small matter of avoiding rocks, running aground or sinking. Convinced they ‘know’ where they are, and then persuading themselves, that a light clearly flashing 5 times, was flashing in fact flashing 6. Even finding excuses about why the rest of the 'picture' and the many other lights weren’t right.

Why do we do it? In my case turning up at the wrong place for a funeral. A mixture of emotion on a sad occasion. Over confidence in myself. A tad smug as someone who travels. Being on my own. I’ll never mix up cemetery and crematorium again, that much I know. I’ll go back to trusting instinct a little more, and the sat nav a little less.

Maybe it is a gift to be less confident. To be more open to challenge. More open to changing your mind. Or your perspective. Think of the childhood experience of a little girl in the back of the car, hearing her mum crying, her dad silent. Her belief for years that she’d done something very bad, and only decades later jolted when your older brother says, ‘do you remember us in the back of the car the day JFK was shot?’

I’m going to do my best to avoid cul-de-sacs. I’m going to try to lose my more opinionated self. I’m going to be particularly alert when I want something to be true, particularly as someone who cares so much for the charity I lead and the people we help. Less of the ‘I believe’ and more 'scientific integrity’. A phrase coined by Richard Feynman denoting ‘the willingness to bend over backward to examine reasons your pet theories about the world might be wrong’ (Julia Galef, Slate).

Please share your comments and views about this blog below, or you can contact Jo on Twitter.

Time for co-production to be business as usual?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:28:30 GMT

Despite using the word in the title of my provocation piece, ‘The challenge of co-production when we can’t be trusted to vote for anything’, the first challenge is the word ‘co-production’!

When I talk about co-production many people do not know what it is. Creating any change starts with a conversation, so it is decidedly unhelpful when someone needs to disclose their lack of understanding at the onset of that conversation. The person in the know is immediately in a slightly elevated position. Elevated positions are an unhelpful conversation starter when talking about something which is about equal standings!

True co-production is a way of thinking and working, it is not a standalone technique. For it to work you have to have an organisation that lives and breathes its key values. It will often need transformational leadership. The CEO and leadership team must believe in the moral and operational value of working with customers as equal partners, and must ensure that the values, systems and processes that define the organisation drive the appropriate behaviour.

I share in my piece five key steps to working in this way based on my experience of working as a co-production consultant on these issues in the social sector.

Awareness: Share with all concerned the thinking behind the decision to take a co-production approach to illustrate transparency.
Buy-in: For co-production to work, you need buy-in from all parties.
Expectations: All parties need an understanding of expectations, and knowledge about what they mean in reality - what’s required of them, decision making and so on.
Performance: Everybody needs to have the required skills to deliver. This is where training and guidance might be required.
Feedback: Giving regular feedback is important - all parties must remain informed about the current situation, the objectives, the barriers and the likely outcome.

One of the key values in co-production is mutual respect and equal access to information. The theory is that when customers see the whole picture they will be able to help make better decisions and also understand why their ideas cannot be done (if that is a valid outcome). I argue in my piece that a tickbox exercise to consultation, which has been business as usual, is partly behind some of the votes we saw last year (Brexit, Trump etc).

You can’t expect the public to make reasoned judgements without mutual trust, open information and a genuine sense of equality.

If there is a lesson to be learned from 2016 it is that if you want users or the public to follow, you need to understand where they are at and allow them access to your world. You need to do more than listen and do it from a place of equality. By working collaboratively we will produce something better and something that it is much harder to argue against. Only then can we have confidence in our direction of travel.

Please share your views and comments below about her blog and provocation piece, or you can contact her on Twitter.

Is social investment serving the needs of social sector organisations?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:30:03 GMT

Social investment is a subject that has been much talked about in recent years. There are some within the voluntary and community sectors with strong views about social investment, either for or against. As someone who has spent almost a decade working in the realm of social investment, I am most definitely an advocate. But recently I have found myself becoming quite frustrated with the social investment sector because I am not sure we are adequately serving those who have social impact at the heart of their mission – charities and social enterprises.

It is no secret that the social sector is operating in challenging times. We are in our 6th year of government austerity and public contracts are feeling the force of that. Given this climate, is the social investment sector providing finance that these often small organisations can access and afford?

Recent research has highlighted the need for social investors to be able to offer not just finance which is lower cost, but also blended finance and finance which can take higher risks. Unfortunately despite this need, often this isn’t the sort of finance that is being offered (although there are a handful of honourable exceptions). What all of this points to is that what the social investment market is currently offering isn’t necessarily what the majority of the market we serve wants from us. We are not responding to demand, but instead we are asking others to fit our needs and those of our investors. And I’m not sure that’s the right way round to be doing things.

When I was interviewed to become a Clore Social Fellow in September 2014 I was asked what change I wanted to help bring about in society. My answer was that I wanted to help redistribute resources; that there is enough money in the world but that at the moment too much of it was accessed by too few, and that I wanted to change that. I still want to change that. And I want to change that because the charities and social enterprises we are here to serve are struggling. We need to:

Look at new, different and innovative ways to get the money that already exists to a point where it can be used to help the organisations supporting the communities in need.
Be able to demonstrate that the finance we are providing is creating a social impact and making a real difference to people’s lives.
Ask investors to support us in offering the type of finance that charities and social enterprises want; simple, straightforward finance that they can afford.

Doing this will be no easy task, but it is something I believe we are duty bound to do. Because if we try we might just do it - and this will benefit everyone.

Please share your views and comments about Deborah’s blog and full piece below, or you can contact her on Twitter.

It's time for us to rediscover our national character

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:34:20 GMT

Sophie Livingstone is Chief Executive of City Year UK, Co-Chair and Co-Founder of Generation Change, and a Trustee at Royal Voluntary Service.

Make no mistake, this country faces huge challenges. We have an epidemic of loneliness and isolation, a mental health crisis, girls growing up with extreme levels of anxiety about the pressure to conform, and a high rate of young male suicides. We are a world leader in educational inequality, social mobility is ever more entrenched, we have a social care crisis and a subsequent near NHS meltdown. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 13.5m do not earn enough to get by.

The people we rely on to manage the consequences of these challenges - doctors, nurses, care workers, teachers, social workers, prison officers - are generally underpaid, undervalued and facing severe staff shortages.

Additionally, those we need to lead us through to the other side - the politicians who have stepped up to contribute to our nation through their service - are increasingly trolled, threatened and abused as 'career politicians'. A sense of meaning and connection is missing from our public discourse amidst the value placed on sound bites and showbiz over experience and compassion.

My belief is that a lack of collective meaning and purpose is tearing us apart. We have gone too far in valuing the cognitive over the human and emotional. It’s certainly been my recent experience during interaction with a wide range of public services as a result of a family tragedy.

But there is an opportunity to do things differently. Whatever our personal views about Brexit, it does give us the opportunity to reconsider what defines our country in the 21st century, and what public service now means. Civil Society has a proud tradition of shaping public discourse and action, whether it be the settlement movements of the 19th century, or the creation of the Women’s Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS - now the RVS) during the Second World War to involve women in tackling the challenge of war at home.

The 2005 Make Poverty History campaign changed the game for international development. Tackling domestic poverty is complex and ongoing, and the issue is entwined with our national culture. But if our great sector is not able to step up and represent humanity, compassion, values and leadership, then all really is lost.

It still feels like a huge and daunting challenge - and it is, bigger than any one of us. But unless we all feel a sense of responsibility to go beyond hand wringing towards trying to turn the tide, we are as much a part of the problem. Civil society has been at the forefront of national movements for change before and we need it to do so again, urgently.

A few non exhaustive thoughts about what should change, and some glimmers of hope include:

Expand National Citizen Service, which has made a great start over the last six years, to more age groups and models, using the power of the brand to show young people their contribution is valued.
Build on the success of Teach First, Frontline and Police Now by creating more ways for young people to gain experience and entry into public and voluntary service, going beyond just the top graduates to all young people.
Change the way we treat and value older people and their wisdom, growing and supporting those organisations and networks that create more connections, such as the Royal Voluntary Service and North and South London Cares.
Accelerate and value emerging leaders in our sector through schemes such as Clore Social.
Support initiatives which give a voice to those who often feel they have no say, such as Undivided; a youth led campaign giving young people aged 13 to 30 a way to input to the Brexit negotiations.
Supporting the ‘Solve UK Poverty’ plan set out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in September.

The Founder of the Women’s Royal Voluntary Service, Lady Stella Reading believed that the strength of a nation 'lies not in her trading, nor in the multitude of her financial transactions. It’s not found in her banking operations nor in the acumen of her leaders. The ultimate strength of a nation lies in the character of the men and women who are that nation and voluntary service is an integral part of that character.'

We need to rediscover our national character and I believe that starts with each of us.

Please post your comments about Sophie’s blog below, or you can share your views with her on Twitter.

'How am I doing?' How feedback enables social leadership

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:36:56 GMT

Andreana Drencheva is a Lecturer in Entrepreneurship at the University of Sheffield where she helps social entrepreneurs to develop entrepreneurial and leadership capabilities.

In the 1980’s New York’s legendary mayor Ed Koch was known for his phrase ‘How am I doin’?’. This phrase was not just his public slogan, but also a genuine request for feedback and a meaningful and authentic way to connect with constituents and stakeholders. While we usually think of leaders as the individuals who provide feedback to those they motivate, inspire, organise, and manage; leaders, particularly social leaders, are also in a unique position to benefit from feedback. Feedback can come from diverse individuals to focus on a variety of individual, team, organisational, and system topics. Ultimately, feedback answers two fundamental questions: ‘How am I doing?’ and ‘How can I do better?’.

Feedback enables effective social leadership in three main ways. We can see the benefits of feedback for social leaders by applying the Clore Social Leadership Framework. The framework focuses on helping leaders develop their personal qualities, understand their context, and work with and through others. Feedback underpins each one of these three areas of social leadership.

1. Feedback helps social leaders to know and look after themselves. As evaluative type of information (i.e. ‘How am I doing?’), feedback increases self-awareness and tells social leaders whether their skills and actions match their intentions, goals, and values. As suggestive type of information (i.e. ‘How can I do better?’), feedback also provides social leaders with ideas and solutions on how to look after themselves, how to maintain wellbeing, and how to prevent burnout. It can also offer them suggestions on how to lead authentically in a way that reflects their personal values and ideas while balancing others’ expectations of who a leader is, and what a leader does.

2. Feedback helps social leaders assess their current and potential context. While no one can predict the future of the complex and dynamic world we live in, feedback can give a meaningful voice to everyone involved in a system. Thus feedback from diverse perspectives can help social leaders to understand and assess the current position of their work. Feedback is also an essential element of how individuals and organisations learn, thus it can enable social leaders to adapt their work to meet the needs of their context. Feedback from diverse perspectives can also expose the challenges, options, and possible future directions of the system and give social leaders ideas for how to address or take advantage of them.

Feedback from diverse perspectives enables social leaders to set an inspiring vision that naturally brings others into the process of catalysing social change. Additionally, feedback gives voice to diverse individuals and communities, which allows social leaders to leverage the collective creativity in the system and address challenges and opportunities in a collaborative way. Therefore, feedback makes the social change process more social and collaborative, while also bringing additional resources and support from those who have a similar vision.

To maximise the benefits of feedback, social leaders need to address two main challenges. The first challenge for social leaders is to proactively seek feedback from diverse individuals in a way that makes others feel comfortable to share critical, honest, and objective feedback. The second challenge for leaders is to find the time and space to systematically reflect on the (hopefully) diverse feedback they receive, and decide how to use it to benefit their personal development and the development of their work.

Please share your views about this blog post below, or contact Andreana on Twitter.

We need to change the narrative on food poverty

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:38:17 GMT

OK, I was wrong, and it took a fellowship to Canada in 2015 to realise it.

I have been involved in the food movement for a decade, specialising in building good food communities. I continue to see many benefits to putting good food at the heart of a community, including increases in social capital and benefits to mental and physical health.

I became increasingly aware of the increase in the number of people visiting food banks and I thought that the sorts of programmes I worked on could reduce this number. I then went to Canada thanks to a Winston Churchill fellowship.

One of the reasons I went to Canada, a country where food banks have existed for almost 30 years longer than in the UK, was to learn how emergency food aid providers in Canada have gone beyond basic food provision to reduce people’s food bills and dependency on the state.

What I actually found was that food aid providers were increasingly disassociating themselves from the message that they were reducing food poverty. They realised that while people need feeding they must also raise awareness of the need to advocate for wider systemic change as, ultimately, that is what’s required to have the necessary impact.

Measurement of food poverty had helped greatly in bringing this to the fore. Whereas the UK government continues to reject calls to undertake national measurement, Canada has been doing so for many years. As a result they understand very clearly that the situation has only got worse despite an increase in food aid, and research from the likes of Valerie Tarasuk at the University of Toronto has provided evidence of the lack of impact that food aid provision has.

I’m not here to bash food banks though. People are hungry and hundreds of groups across the country, very often run by volunteers, are working tirelessly to feed them.

Instead, in my article I call for a need to change the narrative on food poverty and highlight the importance of all of us, including food aid providers, in getting behind this new narrative to prevent the further institutionalisation of food aid. I provide more evidence for why this new narrative is required, offer up suggestions for what we can all do to get behind this new narrative and highlight how in the UK we’re in danger of creating a segregated food system for the poor if we don’t take action now.

Please share your views and comments below, or start a conversation with Seb on Twitter.

What is good leadership?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:39:35 GMT

Joining Clore Social Leadership as the Director of Programmes and Leadership Innovation has given me the enviable role of meeting the social sector’s most ambitious and engaging leaders. Never more apparent than with the interviews for our 2017 cohort where they were asked ‘What is good leadership?’

This is one of the toughest questions to answer, not only because one search of that question presents 48,700,000 results on Google, so there’s no ‘right’ answer.

It is tough because we can all instinctively recall someone who we feel embodies good leadership and more often the opposite too, but distilling leadership can all too quickly become messy. Leadership is about people and they are complex, so it’s no surprise the topic can become full of confusing juxtapositions.

I’ve joined Clore Social Leadership at an exciting time where we want to make leadership development accessible for all in the social sector. We want to open up the conversation about social sector leadership so we have chosen to share our new Social Leaders’ Capability Framework. Developed using our experience of developing social sector leaders over the past eight years, and using our collective foresight to highlight the capabilities we believe social sector leaders need to face the complex challenges and opportunities over the coming weeks, months and years.

Our new cohort of 2017 Fellows will be the first to embody the mindset and behaviours exhibited in this Framework. They will help us critique it to ensure it stays relevant for the sector, and we hope that you’ll join us too, to help us continue to build a culture of good leadership.

So who should use this Capabilities Framework? My answer would be everyone because leadership is a mindset, a set of behaviours. A toolkit of skills and techniques. It can be developed in everyone and we should actively practice it every single day.

I believe this is leadership at it’s simplest. A demystified description of something that Joseph Rost, Professor of Leadership Studies at the University of San Diego found to have been defined in about 200 different ways over the past 75 years, detailed in his book ‘Leadership for the 21st Century’.

I agree with Barbara Kellerman that a leadership development ‘industry’ will only become an improved industry and deliver good or even great leadership to our communities, organisations and across the globe when it is ‘inclusive rather than exclusive’.

So whether you have leadership in your title or not, take a look at our Capabilities Framework. Share your views with us and help build a culture of great leadership in our sector where everyone has the opportunity to understand their strengths, and know what is required of them as social leaders.

Nurturing a new type of leadership

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:41:17 GMT

Stephen Clare is a third sector business adviser and coach, and Director of Cyta Consultancy Ltd. Previously he was Deputy Chief Executive of Locality.

What is leadership? Such a simple question, and yet it has generated thousands of books and an industry in its own right. Everywhere managers are told that they need to be leaders – but leadership is nothing to do with seniority or one’s position in the hierarchy of an organisation. Leadership has nothing to do with titles. Leadership isn’t even necessarily anything to do with personal attributes. We don’t need extroverted charismatic traits to practice leadership. And those with charisma don’t automatically lead.

Leadership and management are not synonymous. They are two different things. Of course, good management is needed. Managers need to plan, measure, monitor, coordinate, solve, hire, fire, and so many other things. Typically, managers manage things. And leaders lead people. However, I would also argue that one of the major barriers to change we face today is that people think they have to wait for a ‘leader’ to emerge – somebody who ‘knows better’, the traditional ‘hero’ who embodies the future. I think the very opposite is true.

Over the years, I’ve learned to define leadership differently. A leader is anyone willing to help, anyone who sees something that needs to change and takes the first steps to influence that situation. It might be a parent who intervenes in their child’s school; or a woman in a rural village in India who works to get clean water; or a citizen who rallies the community to stop a library closure. Everywhere in the world, no matter the economic or social circumstances, people step forward to try and make a small difference. That, for me, is the starting position in understanding leadership – it’s about taking action, it’s about doing something, it’s about changing the world in some way. And leadership is also an act of humility – an act of service to others. To quote management guru Tom Peters: “Management is about arranging and telling. Leadership is about nurturing and enhancing.”

Today, many of us are ‘swimming in the same river’ – trying to cultivate collective leadership in diverse settings around the world even while our larger cultural contexts remain firmly anchored to the myth of the heroic leader. Even in the VCSE sector, there is still an over-emphasis on the individual ‘hero-leader’ which perhaps reflects our tendency to look to business for answers rather than developing approaches that make sense in an environment that is very different. Indeed, I would go further: we need to recognise the dangers and potentially destructive consequences of singling out the individual VCSE leader and heralding them as exceptional (1).

Our challenge is therefore to nurture a new type of leadership that doesn’t depend on the illusion of extraordinary individuals. The leadership of the future will not be provided simply by individuals but by groups, communities and networks. And these leaders must '… work to create the space where people living with a problem can come together to tell the truth, think more deeply about what is really happening, explore options beyond popular thinking, and search for higher leverage changes through progressive cycles of action and reflection and learning over time' (2).

1. Pennington, Hilary, Why Rewarding Leaders Might Hurt Collaboration, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2016. See http://ssir.org/articles/entry/why_rewarding_leaders_might_hurt_collaboration

2. Peter Senge, Hal Hamilton & John Kania, The Dawn of System Leadership, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2015. See http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_dawn_of_system_leadership

Generous leadership

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:44:44 GMT

Dawn Austwick is Chief Executive of Big Lottery Fund.

Anyone interested in the role and nature of leadership will not have been short of food for thought lately. The recent referendum debated at length Britain’s role on the world stage – with both sides keen to paint a picture of leadership either within or without the EU. In that debate, we will rarely have seen a more eclectic array of personalities seeking to burnish their own leadership credentials. And both the Conservatives and Labour have engaged in (albeit very different) internal soul-searching about the leadership they need to tackle the post-Brexit era. Theresa May now leads the country – tasked with bringing the country back together and forging a socially just, economically sound, future. A task not without challenges.

But for all this leadership talk, the referendum laid bare the fact that large numbers of people feel disenfranchised and ignored by the powers-that-be. That’s an immediate challenge, and one that civil society has a key role to play in tackling. At the heart of this is giving people and communities a sense of agency over their lives. Here at the Fund, our new strategic framework sets out what sounds like a simple vision: putting people in the lead in shaping their lives and communities. That means people and communities defining their own aspirations, and organisations (including us) supporting them to achieve it. It’s nicely encapsulated by the phrase ‘nothing about us, without us, is for us’. And, in leadership terms that can be quite a challenge to what we are used to.

So what does great leadership look like in a thriving civil society? There’s a conversation starting to emerge around a concept I am calling ‘generous leadership’. John Donne has it in a nutshell:

"No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main."

And if I think back to my time as a trustee of conservation charity the Woodland Trust, it absolutely mirrors how we think of biodiversity - 'it's an ecology, stupid!' Everything is inter-linked and ultimately inter-dependent.

I’ve spent quite a lot of my professional career in the cultural sector. Over the last 25 years a pattern of generous leadership has evolved and developed: with national institutions like Tate and the British Museum jointly curating and displaying their collections with regional museums, training and developing curators and conservators of the future. The National Theatre has pioneered co-productions with smaller production companies and regional houses and sees its own box office as a platform for other companies to benefit from. And we have co-funded Battersea Arts Centre's ‘The Agency’ partnership with People’s Palace Projects, based on a model founded in the favelas of Rio to support young people to make entrepreneurial ideas a reality.

Fundamentally, these cultural institutions developed a more acute awareness of their place in a delicate ecosystem. Civil society has no less rich and diverse an ecosystem (the NCVO Almanac is a useful reference point). ‘Generous’ leaders need to think clearly about what they have that they can share with others – be it money, time, or assets. And that shouldn’t be thought of as a simple act of altruism, but as an exercise in mutual benefit.

Take for example, the acquisition of Only Connect by Catch 22. The latter provides strategic support, scale and greater financial security, the former provides a new innovative arm of the business alongside skills and closeness to community. For this to work, the generous leader has to have a burning focus on mission rather than organisational preservation. This might mean supporting other organisations working with a similar mission to thrive rather than pursuing perpetual growth. Or it might mean offering space and time for an emerging leader from outside the organisation to reflect and develop their ideas, as the Catch22 Fellowship programme does. Generous leadership with a focus on mission may also lead a CEO and Board to decide that income growth is not always the path to achieving that mission - a decision EveryChild took under Anna Feuchtwang’s leadership.

Charlie Howard’s MAC-UK initiative goes even further – set up on a ten year basis with the intention of changing the nature of mental health provision for young people, before exiting stage left. And that points to a further characteristic of generous leadership, of being networked with other people working hard for social change. Rather than simply telling a single story, generous leaders seek to be a part of a wider movement and to share in that narrative instead. That’s a lesson that we funders need to particularly reflect on, having traditionally been criticised for thinking in terms of ‘our’ money and what it achieves, rather than the bigger picture for people and communities: sometimes attribution can get in the way of the best solution. The Early Action Funders Alliance is an example of positive steps in the right direction, bringing together a cluster of UK funders to explore and test ways of preventing problems from occurring rather than simply coping with the consequences.

And so we return to ‘nothing about us, without us, is for us’. As generous leaders, we must renew our championing of the grassroots, staying focused on our mission and how best we can facilitate the work of those we support – the people in the lead. We must be listeners and collaborators with our colleagues in the sector, recognising where and how we can add value. And, as generous leaders, we must welcome the opportunity to challenge our own assumptions of what good leadership looks like, and fully embrace the complexity that will provoke.

Mother Teresa's calling card

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:45:46 GMT

Our Chief Executive Shaks Ghosh shares the personal lessons she learned from Mother Teresa’s leadership, following the humanitarian's recent cannonisation.

While Mother Teresa was doing her missionary work in Calcutta, I was a student at the city's Loreto Convent, the place where Mother Teresa started her leadership journey. It was a source of some amusement to us students - our politics and views about social action could not have been further from hers.

As young socialist students, we did not always appreciate her methods and devotion and often criticised her actions. We wished that she would do more to address the causes of suffering. We felt that simply offering love and dignity to the starving thousands was going to change nothing.

How wrong we were! The Mother did much to raise the issues of poverty globally; her advocacy for the poor, and her courageous admonishment of governments, the wealthy and the powerful have become legendary. She lived the life of the poor - to her dying day she shared a room with four other women. I now regret that as young politicos, we were so harsh in trivialising her preachings of love, humility and service.

Last week when she was being cannonised we heard about her doubts, her questions of her God and her faith. A salutary reminder that the road of meaningful leadership is paved with loneliness, sacrifice and self doubt. Mother Teresa was not always at peace.

My own mother served with Mother Teresa, working with children in her leprosy orphanage and raising funds for the houses where poor people of Calcutta still go to die. She met The Mother only once, and received one of her famous 'calling cards' which were what she called her business cards. Printed on the reverse were the powerful words, 'The fruit of love is service, and the fruit of service is peace'. RIP Mother Teresa.

Awkward bedfellows and slippery concepts a.k.a. How to lead social change

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:47:33 GMT

Dr Henry Kippin is executive director of Collaborate an independent CIC focusing on the thinking, culture and practice of cross-sector collaboration.

Leadership is a slippery concept. A verb, not a noun. A spirit, not a skillset. It is a term that is broad and deep enough to mean both everything and nothing. But there is no doubt that if leadership matters (as Richard Harries’s excellent paper suggests), then we need to strive to make sure that the concept can hold the weight we ascribe to it. This means we need to work on it.

The concept of leadership development is becoming more tricky to grasp in line with the changing context around it. This throws up more questions than answers. But anyone OK with a degree of complexity and nuance should absolutely welcome that. Peoples’ lives are complex and multi-faceted, so why should we expect positively changing them to be any less so?

Collaborate’s work is about supporting people who want to lead change through collaboration. Our work is about blurring sector boundaries to improve outcomes for the public. By its very nature, it unpicks the way we define sectors and understand services, and in this context effective leadership may have some counterintuitive traits. Let me explain…

1. Great organisational leadership is necessary but not sufficient – those with an eye on health and social care reform (for example) will note the prevalence of high quality hospitals functioning brilliantly within places in which some social outcomes haven’t changed for decades. Does great leadership mean more of the same? Clearly not. But just as unwelcome is a narrow version of system change that might help to keep organisations sustainable but is just as far from real co-production as ever. If the Brexit vote shows us anything, it is the acute need to close this gap. Social sector leaders should be actively working together to do so.

2. Collaboration and consensus make awkward bedfellows – any meaningful change is hard to effect. Yet we often expect this to happen across different organizations with multiple incentives in a complex environment with a remarkable degree of ease. Hope over experience on a grand scale! Beyond creating good vibes in the room, collaborative leaders need to know how to be honest, when to say no (or even better: ‘I don’t know!’), and how to create the right commitment devices to support collective progress against shared goals with multiple stakeholders. That is why we talk about building ‘collaboration readiness’: it isn’t easy.

3. The social sector silo is dead. Long live collaborative social change – social change is not the preserve of the social sector, and nor can the sector deliver some of the aspirations it exists to address in-and-of-itself. Look at the JRF’s strategy for ending poverty: a clear role for business, government and society. Leaders need to care as much about their terms of engagement with other systems and sectors as their own independence, seeing their world through others’ eyes. For a 17-year old looking for work, a smartphone, a broadband connection and a mate with a job are the critical ingredients. None of these things are delivered as public services; none of these things are innate social goods. Yet social sector leaders recognize that part of their role is creating the conditions for these things to be accessible.

So how do we operationalise some of these insights in response to Shaks Gosh’s challenge of ‘new solutions’ and a need for ‘structured leadership development’? Collaborate’s own efforts have been written up recently as the Anatomy of Collaboration: the critical components of cross-sector leadership and delivery as defined by an expert group convened in partnership with Oxford University. One quote from a prominent social sector leader stands out for me: “Collaboration is an offer, not a demand. It should always come with a decent pitch”. One might say the same about leadership.

Please share your views and comments below, you can also follow Dr Kippin on Twitter @h_kippin.

The elephant in the room: Exclusiveness in our sector

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:50:14 GMT

Today is World Elephant Day, so I’m taking the opportunity to talk about the elephant in the room - the exclusiveness in our sector.

It’s almost two years since an analysis of the top 50 fundraising charities revealed that 88% of Chief Executives were white, and 70% male. In senior management roles 94% were white, and 56% male. This is a sharp contrast to the society that we all live in and yet not much seems to have changed. So, why all the white guys?

As part of my Clore Social Leadership journey, I am currently working with in Washington D.C. I’ll be here for six weeks and as I’m learning so much here, I explored with the organisation what I might feasibly do for them in such a short time. What are their priorities? I was delighted to hear the response of: ‘We’d like to be an even more welcoming and inclusive organisation’. Given my passion for leaders making decisions with, and not for the communities that we serve, I’m excited to see what I can do.

In exploring this important issue, I can’t ignore a social and political context to discussing diversity in our world today. Racial tensions in the U.S. are high as a result of disproportionate shootings of African American men killed by the police. Recent shootings of police officers have been called ‘revenge attacks’, and organisations such as are accused of race-baiting. Worldwide, we are hearing increased political rhetoric that risks inciting or spreading fear and can contribute to a feeling of different=DANGEROUS. I’m fortunate in Defender’s that the organisation understands the power of diversity, and have identified increasing diversity as a priority, so I don’t need to have the conversation here. But we absolutely need to be having the conversation in our sector.

In this context I ask myself, how do we have a conversation about diversity and inclusion that can create the change without making the white men feel excluded, or even threatened? (Then there’s a whole internal dialogue that argues ‘who cares if they’re threatened, they need to get over it’, but I’m not sure if that will affect the change we need).

Maybe we could start by making ‘diversity’ more inclusive?

Often our sector can see diversity as an HR issue, or we create tick-boxes to monitor how we’re doing. More progressive thinking recognises that diversity goes beyond race, gender, religion, age etc. It recongnises that I’m diverse in the speed in which I learn, as well my sexual identity. Diversity goes beyond the visible. As a sector, we should lead the way in celebrating all diversity. As a priority this must include recognising individual differences that cause disadvantage, such as the people’s race or religion, and making real and determined efforts to mitigate the impact of those differences in our employment practices.

I know that we need the best minds to solve the big challenges that face our sector today, and the more diverse those minds the better. I know that a diverse workforce can help to redress our unconscious bias, and give us the best chance to connect with and understand the communities that we serve. I strive to create an inclusive environment but I look at the teams that I’ve been responsible for recruiting and I know that we don’t represent Scotland’s vibrancy, and diversity. The question I really need to be asking myself is ‘why?’, and I invite you to do the same.

Are charity Chairs on a high wire with no net?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:52:09 GMT

John Williams is Vice Chair at the Association of Chairs.

It’s been a tough 12 months for Chairs and trustees. The charity sector has faced unprecedented challenge and criticism, and much of it has focused on apparent failings in governance and leadership. Chairs especially are under pressure to ensure their boards are responsible and effective, while continuing to deliver the maximum impact for their beneficiaries.

The Association of Chairs (AoC) was set up three years ago to support charity and other non-profit Chairs, and to champion good governance and leadership in the sector. Chairs tell us they find their role rewarding, but a surprising number say that they find it more lonely, demanding and complex than they expected. Even those with the most stellar CVs and broad skills and experience can find themselves outside their comfort zone.

Yet it is clear to us that there is neither a consistent nor sufficient level of support offered to Chairs, and this has been starkly confirmed by our recent survey.

Using our substantial database, we researched 360 respondents in a chairing role, including 140 AoC members. We found high levels of commitment to the role - 54% of Chairs spend four days or more per month on their chairing role - but there are significant gaps in support.

Overall 46% of boards have no budget for board development; only 19% had a formal allocated budget, with the remainder addressing development on a case by case basis. Perhaps more surprisingly is that only 34% of Chairs had an induction, arguably the most basic form of support.

The main support Chairs received was access to publications, conferences and events, and administrative support. Apart from publications, fewer than 50% had accessed any kind of development support in the last 12 months, with many restricting themselves to free sources of support.

It’s clear that there is too little financial and practical support given to Chairs for induction, training and personal development. A host of commentators and reports have argued that we need to raise the bar on charity governance. This is not optional - good leadership is critical to ensure charities achieve the social impact they seek. Both our experience and this research suggests that the appetite to learn and develop is there, but we need to find new and imaginative ways to step up that support. We will all benefit from this.

You can download more information regarding the survey results on the Association’s website.

We welcome your comments in response to this article which you can submit beneath this article, or contact John via Twitter.

Public speaking: How do you measure up?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:54:16 GMT

"Are you a brilliant public speaker?"

As chief officers of voluntary organisations there is increasing pressure on us all to be ‘great communicators’, so it’s a pretty loaded question.

I need to state straight away that I do not pretend to be a brilliant public speaker … but I am improving. I have been director of Barnardo’s Scotland for 9 years now and speeches go with the job. However, my early efforts were truly awful so from my own grim experience I am happy to offer my scale of public speaking:

Level 1: Read speech from prepared notes; success is reaching the end without being sick on stage.

Level 2: Look up occasionally from prepared notes; success is reaching the end with some of the audience still awake.

Level 3: Present a speech from notes with occasional ad libs; success is a polite round of applause at the end.

Level 4: Deliver a speech using only a prompt sheet; success is eye contact with the audience and questions at the end.

Level 5: Perform centre stage with no notes: success is energy and excitement, your own and your audience.

So, if you can do Level 5 are you a brilliant speaker? Not necessarily. You can be oozing self-confidence and have fun delivering what you think is the most moving and insightful speech since Nelson Mandela but the judgement of your brilliance rests with the audience.

So what is it that an audience wants from a speech? Well, in my view it’s a combination of three things: expertise, passion and gravitas. The balance between the three will shift on each occasion but as charity chiefs we have to demonstrate some degree of each.

The chief officer will rarely be the most expert on a subject and frontline workers are often the most passionate but the thing we should bring to a speech is gravitas – if the boss is talking about something then it must be important!

If we consider expertise, passion and gravitas as points on a triangle then as individuals we will each have a ‘comfort zone’ within the triangle in which we like to operate. As my public speaking has improved my comfort zone has expanded – I can appear to be expert, do a bit of passion and lay on the gravitas when needed.

But even if you are a confident speaker and tailor your speech to the audience, you won’t impress everyone. Because the problem is that an audience is made up of individual people all of whom receive communications differently. Some people like facts and figures, some people like visuals and some just want passion. One person’s inspiring speaker is another person’s show off!

This isn’t all an elaborate argument to say that Level 1 presentation skills are acceptable but it does mean that that you can answer the question “Are you a brilliant public speaker?” with a confident ‘no’ – because there is no such thing.

You can tweet Martin on @CreweMartin.

Would you like to contribute a blog to Leaders Now? Please email your ideas to info@cloresocialleadership.org.uk.

Humble and courageous leadership

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:55:35 GMT

It is common to hear that effective leadership requires conviction: acting in accordance and pursuit of one’s beliefs. I’m not sure this is right – at least not all the time. I think there is a lot to said for being a humble and courageous leader, grounded in evidence, rather than one driven solely by conviction.

The word ‘conviction’ is derived from the Latin convincere, from con- ‘with’ and vincere ‘conquer’. It implies that one’s mind is made up, and the job is to persuade or convince others.

Humility, on the other hand, implies that one does not know the answer. It suggests modesty and an acceptance that one’s own opinion or proposed course of action may not be the best.

A leader that embodies only conviction with no humility will likely polarise those they seek to lead and in some cases make poorly informed or biased decisions. On the other hand, a leader that embodies only humility probably won’t make any decisions at all.

So what is the way forward? I think it is humble and courageous leadership, with just a small dose of conviction where required. This means a starting point of intellectual curiosity, not a mind made up. It means adopting a scientist’s way of thinking in which one does not know the answer but is curious to find out. It means having the courage to question honestly one’s own convictions.

Evidence has a role. This may be drawing on the experiences of others that have gone before (and learning from it). Or it may involve going out to generate new data to test out ideas. The trick is to be genuinely humble and not do what many leaders (and politicians) do in cherry-picking evidence to support one’s own pre-existing conviction.

Sometimes evidence can point to a clear way forwards. Happy days. Often it is not so straight-forward - which leads us to courage.

Adopting a starting point of humility and engagement with evidence can surface some challenging scenarios. Probably the most likely scenario is that evidence does not point to a clear-cut way forward. Evidence may be sparse or it may be contradictory. This requires skill and courage to navigate uncertain waters. It is times like this when that dose of conviction is useful, tempered with a little humility.

Or sometimes evidence can challenge preconceived notions or convictions. It takes a braver leader to change course in light of new evidence than one that belligerently sticks to their guns.

You can share your views with Tim directly on Twitter via @tim_data_hobbs or post your comments below.

What lessons in governance can the charity sector learn from the arts?

Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:56:42 GMT

Blog by Prue Skene, Leadership in Governance facilitator and Clore Leadership Programme Governance Associate.

I’ve led on board development for the Clore Leadership Programme for the cultural sector for some eight years now, and during that time have worked with dozens of arts boards. I’m now about to take some of that expertise and experience into the social sector, swapping from cultural to social leadership and devising a Clore Social Leadership workshop for Chairs and CEOsattending as pairs.

The first big question I have to ask myself when preparing for this is: What’s the difference between the two sectors as far as governance is concerned? And the answer seems to be very little. While Boards of artistic organisations often need coaxing to understand their role in artistic programming and risk, in the social sector they need to have great clarity about their beneficiaries and their causes. People might think that there’s more glamour about having access to first nights and private views but I’ve met very few Board members who put priority on such things. All Trustees need to leave vainglory at the door! I think fortunately for this country there are still a great number of souls who genuinely want to give something back and feel that joining a charitable Board helps them accomplish this.

The cultural world hasn’t had a Kids Company (yet!) but nonetheless that disaster raised the pressure on all charitable Boards. The need to be strategic and not operational, the responsibility each Trustee has for the financial health of an organisation and the understanding of the relationship between Chair and CEO applies throughout all of the charity sector.

There is much literature on and many weblinks to the roles and responsibilities of being a charitable Trustee. What is more difficult to find is how the relationships work: Chair/CEO, Board/executive staff, Board/membership or beneficiaries. How is trust formed? How do a disparate group of people who perhaps meet formally only four times a year arrive at strategic decisions for the future growth and wellbeing of their organisation? In any increasingly complex world, how are ethics, diversity and sustainability delivered while ensuring that the objectives of the charity are always adhered to?

None of these pertinent areas belong to any one sector. They all need addressing, not through a textbook but through discussion, understanding and good induction with some case studies of bad examples to give warning and some of good examples to encourage. That is what I hope my workshop will deliver, together with the hot topic of the role of the Board in fundraising and other practical advice. What all Boards in the charitable sector need to know is how to lead and support, while challenging where necessary. It’s an art in itself.

If you are interested in further understanding the role of your CEO or Chair and developing your skills in governance best practice, including risk management, income generation and the diversity of a Board, then you may want to consider attending our Leadership in Governance workshop on 21 May 2016 with your Chair or CEO. Call 020 7812 3770 to book.