by Neel Hajra

Whew, looong day. Once again, I gotta start with some fluff:

  • My room has a touch screen-controlled curtain system with 8 settings. Seriously? This crosses the fine line between luxury and sloth. Even worse, does anyone really want to have to reboot their curtains in order to open them? I think not.
  • I stand corrected: the StrategyLab folks know how to play: some dancing after dinner, followed by a few folks meeting for drinks at the hotel bar. This is the kind of social glue that every event needs.

Okay, on to the StrategyLab. Much to report…

Who else is NOT Here

I’ve already mentioned the relative lack of younger generations. Another interesting absence reflects our sector as a whole. More specifically, three giant cornerstones of the nonprofit sector are under-represented: hospitals (none at all), higher ed (academics in nonprofit fields are here, but no Presidents/high executives), and religious groups (just a smattering). Collectively, these groups represent a significant portion of the sector’s individual philanthropic input (churches), earned income (hospitals and higher ed), and economic output (ditto).

Frankly, this just mirrors sector realities. The faith-based sector has always been off on its own – they have their own ecosystem of institutions, activities, and alliances. And higher ed and hospitals occupy an entirely different niche than the rest of the sector. They already have economic might and political clout, and they rightfully don’t see how aligning with the rest of us significantly advances their cause. I totally understand this perspective, although I wish they were more engaged with broad sector discussions for the sake of a stronger united front.

Side Note – Senator Grassley

As has been true in many conversations over the past year, I heard off-hand complaints from some foundations about Senator Grassley’s investigations into the sector. I respectfully disagree. I see Senator Grassley’s efforts as a much-needed test of accountability, and a direct outcome of the nonprofit sector’s inability to police itself. Hopefully his involvement will be the kick in the pants we need to take more collective action toward transparency and accountability.

The Agenda

It was another nicely run day, despite some mild turbulence (more on that below). The Architects of Group Genius are a well-oiled machine, and their main man Maurizio is an excellent ringleader. Here was how the day was organized:

  • Breakfast
  • 8 minutes of reflection time where we all wrote in our journals
  • Speech by Maurizio
  • Group identification of “traps” that we face personally or as an organization
  • Small group breakout where we mapped out the “ecosystem” around each of our organizations, identified the common spaces among organizations and sectors, and then (here’s the fun part) each group built a 3D model of this ecosystem. It was goofy, but also engaging.
  • Lunch
  • Group conversation of findings so far (more on that below)
  • Small group breakouts around common emerging themes (diversity, role of donors, leadership/grassroots, metrics/measurement, technology, strengthening democracy, collaboration, and more). Each group defined a problem, came up with a big idea to solve the problem, defined sector’s role in advancing that idea, and ID’ed “dangerous questions” concerning the idea.
  • 3 minute report-outs by each group
  • Dinner

Mild Turbulence

So… this is a room full of leaders. And the sector’s role is to question authority, right? I kept waiting for the ‘Good Leaders Gone Bad’ moment, and it came just when you would expect it: during a meandering and slightly unfocused group conversation after lunch. This was just too much for some, and there were demands for more structure (or less structure), more information, clearer objectives, and so on. In the end, people vented, we got back on track, and the rest of the afternoon passed without drama. Interestingly, Maurizio from Architects of Group Genius told me that he has NEVER encountered the level of criticism of process that he experienced this afternoon. Nice (?) to know that we’ve got more bite than the several heads of state that have used Maurizio’s services :)

We Are the Establishment

I am glad to report that the group seems to recognize itself as The Establishment (well, occasional reminders were needed by the grassroots folks, but only a few). This sort of self-awareness minimized hubris and the illusion that we can generate truly disruptive out-of-the-box thinking. In fact, considering the magnitude of powers-that-be in the room, I was really impressed with just how down-to-earth most people were: I never felt marginalized because of the relatively small size/scope of NEW or because of the generational divide. Surprisingly, this group is more inclusive than most convenings I’ve encountered – maybe the invite-only aspect creates a sense of “safe space” for genuine idea exchange.

And… So What?

If it seems like I’m dancing around the issue of results, it’s because we’re not there yet. I’ve absorbed at least 10 great ideas / perspectives that will aid NEW’s efforts to help nonprofits. I’ve connected with like-minded people and organizations. But that’s all self-focused. The overall output of the group process is TBD. The afternoon issue/solution sessions were great, and I have a feeling that the results will be a strong seed for some new sector ideas and initiatives. Certainly those results will provide fodder for broader discussions with other nonprofits as the Independent Sector moves on to the more public stage of this visioning/brainstorming process.

This fuzziness is good. No one’s trying to prescribe the “right” answer, and folks are embracing the complexity and ambiguity that’s inherent in the third sector. We’re not going to get a revolution out of this, and that’s fine. I’m thinking that what really emerges out of these discussions are consensual themes, philosophies, and concerns that can be touchpoints going forward. That alone would be an excellent result.

« »