Leading with moral clarity seems more elusive and also more necessary than ever. Traditionally, non-profit organizations have often provided both the moral vision for a more just, dignified, inclusive and participative society while also producing the leaders who embodied those principles.
That makes sense given it is the non-profit sector that has often been the voice of conscience in our society, helping call attention to and fill the gaps often left by markets and government, particularly governments who de-prioritize strengthening the social fabric for more vulnerable citizens.
That’s a challenging thing to do on most days, but these are not common times.
Now, non-profit leaders and boards are plagued with moral questions that challenge the very essence of their institution’s mission and existence: how do we continue to lead with the same moral commitment when facing a hostile government landscape and without the traditional allies and funders to help support us?
Typically, a strategic plan would help guide an organization’s direction, growth and even help navigate over bumps, taking into account possible unexpected turns and twists. But the past several months have found many organizations and grant-makers navigating roads they could not envision previously and may be wholly unprepared or underprepared for.
In times of crisis, a moral compass is sometimes the best indicator of how to navigate forward. Most importantly, it is critical that organizations do not lose sight of their core values nor fall prey to feelings of powerlessness or helplessness.
For example, eliminating a commitment to DEI because of external threats that devalue and undermine the gains of struggles for equity and equality will not better position an organization with its funders, clients, or other stakeholders.
Losing the moral center that defines an organization risks undermining all of the organization’s work and legacy and erodes the public’s trust.
Instead, preparation for difficult times that challenge us all and force us to confront who we are and what we believe is essential, and that type of preparation does not have the luxury of presuming extinction.
This planning may look like:
- Strategic planning (initiating or revisiting), including strategic retreats and sessions with various stakeholders;
- One-on-one meetings with each funder to discuss short-term and longer-term planning giving shifting priorities;
- Review of fiscal and legal compliance;
- Investment strategies to support short-term liquidity and solvency.
In addition, organizations may want to consider an advocacy strategy to challenge the policies that target those they serve, including considering broader coalitions and engaging legal guidance for compliance advice. Organizations often work through alliances when challenging oppressive or harmful government policies at all levels, however some are focused on specific issues or groups.
This moment calls for broader coalitions that include groups who are better positioned to sustain reputational or financial hardship than others may be. Inviting – and welcoming – more to the table is critical to collective survival.
That is also true for organizations who may be leaning more heavily on other partners given funder withdrawal, the reduction of organizations (in size and existence), fear within targeted groups and overall burnout all around.
This is a moment to reassess possibilities and strengths, and invite new collaborations and conversations. Organizational well-being is strengthened by the diversity of thought, partnership and supporters.
Leave a Reply