Proximate Leadership:
What Is It and Why Does it Matter?
June 2020
Contents
2
1 | Overview and Methodology |
2 | Research Findings
|
3 | Acknowledgements |
Overview and Methodology
1 |
3
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation commissioned Education First to research the topic of proximate leadership
4
Research questions:
1. What does it mean for a leader to be proximate to a population and/or issue?
2. What is the impact on organizational effectiveness of leaders with proximity?
3. In what ways do leaders with proximity approach work differently, including but not limited to how they design, staff, deliver and evaluate their programs?
We conducted targeted research to answer a set of strategic research questions related to proximate leadership in social purpose organizations.
This describes the evidence we used to address RQ1: What does it mean for a leader to be proximate to a population and/or issue?
5
Relevance
To what extent do the sources address the research question?
Recency
To what extent do the sources reflect current discourse and evidence on nonprofit leadership?
Rigor
To what extent do the sources reflect scientific standards?
FOR THE FULL REVIEW
The sources that defined proximity as lived experience and shared identity were directly defined and studied; by contrast, proximity of place was referred to but not directly defined or studied
FOR THE FULL REVIEW
All sources cited were 2015 or more recent
FOR EACH SOURCE
Methods matched question: primarily surveys and blogs/websites on how thought leaders, including proximate leaders themselves, frame nonprofit proximate leadership and their intersectionalities
This describes the evidence we used to address RQ2: What is the impact on organizational effectiveness of leaders with proximity?
6
Relevance
To what extent do the sources address the research question?
Recency
To what extent do the sources reflect current discourse and evidence on nonprofit leadership?
Rigor
To what extent do the sources reflect scientific standards?
FOR THE FULL REVIEW
We found ample evidence related to financial outcomes and retention associated with proximate leaders, but little on impacts on communities served
FOR THE FULL REVIEW
We included one oft-cited study from 2006, and otherwise all were 2011 or more recent, with heavy majority on 2015 or more recent
FOR EACH SOURCE
Methods somewhat matched question and varied; some were large-scale surveys with statistical controls to isolate the effects of proximate leadership on outcomes and others were descriptive, including multiple surveys of nonprofit leaders
This describes the evidence we used to address RQ3: In what ways do leaders with proximity approach work differently?�
7
Relevance
To what extent do the sources address the research question?
Recency
To what extent do the sources reflect current discourse and evidence on nonprofit leadership?
Rigor
To what extent do the sources reflect scientific standards?
FOR THE FULL REVIEW
Sources covered multiple approaches, including staffing, evaluation and culture
FOR THE FULL REVIEW
All sources cited were 2013 or more recent
FOR EACH SOURCE
Methods matched question and varied; some were large-scale surveys with controls, some were surveys without statistical controls and others included focus groups, interviews and blog posts from proximate leaders
Research Findings
2 |
8
9
Definition of proximity to the population and/or issue
In our research, we uncovered three common definitions �of leaders’ proximity to their social purpose organizations’ populations and/or issues
10
Shared Lived Experience
Shared Identity
Shared Place
For each of these three definitions of proximity, we provide more detail in the slides that follow
11
Shared Lived Experience
Shared Identity
Shared Place
Proximity as shared lived experience means that leaders �have been directly, personally shaped by the social issue(s) that impact their organizations’ population served�
12
“
”
We need to prioritize hiring people with lived experience in issues we’re addressing. This is the basic tenet of equity, that people most affected by the injustice are leading the work to address it.
—Vu Le,
NonprofitAF
Lived Experience
Lived Expertise
Lived Experience Leaders (LEx Leaders)
“The experience of people on whom a social issue, or combination of issues, has had a direct personal impact”
“Knowledge, insights, understanding and wisdom gathered through lived experience”
Change-makers, innovators and leaders who have activated their lived expertise to inform, shape and lead their social purpose work (often in combination with their learned and practiced experience) to directly benefit the communities they share those experiences with
Our work in defining proximity as shared lived experience draws heavily from Baljeet Sandhu’s leadership framework and research from in-depth interviews and surveys with “lived experience leaders.” Below are three important definitions from her work.
Source(s): Boston Consulting Group (2018); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Fund the People (2019) Grantmakers for Education (2017); Le (2019); McKinsey & Company (2018); NewSchools Venture Fund (2020); Promise54 (2016); Prosperity Now (2020); Race to Lead (2018); Race to Lead (2019); The Center for Effective Philanthropy (2018); The Center for Talent Innovation (2013); The Surge Institute (2020); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020); Sandhu (2019)
Proximity as shared identity means that leaders share�one or more of their identities with their population served�
13
“
”
Nonprofit organizations led by people of color are best positioned to drive change in community of color.
—Valeria Lassiter and Lillian Sing, Prosperity Now
Intersectionality of identity and lived experience
Most-cited identities in the research and discourse
In our research, the most-cited identities that proximate leaders share with their population served are race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Of those identities, race and gender are the focus of most of the data on organizational effectiveness.
Our work in defining proximity as shared identity uncovers that research and discourse on shared identity as it relates to leadership tends to focus on certain identities over others, often framed as “reflecting the community served.”
The research we found on organizational effectiveness primarily focuses on shared identity in the demographic data collected, but in the analysis it describes identity in a way that intersected with lived experience. For example, many assert that it is important to have leaders of color in education because they reflect the racial make-up of the student population, but also because they may better understand the experiences of students of color.
Source(s): Boston Consulting Group (2018); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Fund the People (2019) Grantmakers for Education (2017); Le (2019); McKinsey & Company (2018); NewSchools Venture Fund (2020); Promise54 (2016); Prosperity Now (2020); Race to Lead (2018); Race to Lead (2019); The Center for Effective Philanthropy (2018); The Center for Talent Innovation (2013); The Surge Institute (2020); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020); Sandhu (2019)
Proximity as shared place means that leaders grew up in�and/or have lived in for a significant period of time the geographic community of the population served
14
“
”
Community-based action is the most effective way to ensure sustainable growth and opportunity for all.
—The Partnership for Southern Equity
Shared place and shared lived experience
Local understanding, context and connections
Shared place does not equate to shared lived experience. Lived experience leaders emphasize that “living or working in close proximity to those with direct, first-hand experience of social issues or injustices or inequalities [is] not lived experience. Lived experience is experienced personally and directly.” Some local leaders may have personally experienced social injustice in their community, which they may share with their population served; others may not have.
Leading locally means one has roots in the geographic community, which may include an understanding of the social, political and historical context of the community, knowledge of how local systems work and skills to navigate them, and connections to people and organizations in the community.
Our work in defining proximity as shared place draws from discourse about local leaders investing in social purpose organizations that serve their own geographic community.
Source(s): Boston Consulting Group (2018); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Fund the People (2019) Grantmakers for Education (2017); Le (2019); McKinsey & Company (2018); NewSchools Venture Fund (2020); Promise54 (2016); Prosperity Now (2020); Race to Lead (2018); Race to Lead (2019); The Center for Effective Philanthropy (2018); The Center for Talent Innovation (2013); The Surge Institute (2020); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020); Sandhu (2019); US Water Alliance (2020)
There exists significant intersectionality among lived �experience, identity and place
15
Shared Lived Experience
Shared Identity
Shared Place
Lived experience, identity and place can be tightly or loosely intertwined, and how a leader shares these three types of proximity with the population served by their organization is complex.
For example, those with shared racial and/or gender identity may, as a result of experiences related to their shared identity, have shared lived experience as well.
Those who grew up in the same geographic community may have shared lived experiences, though they do not share an identity; at the same time, those who grow up in the same community may have vastly different lived experiences because of their different identities.
Terminology is important. Yet the research and discourse on leadership and proximity can be vague and does not directly address intersectionalities
16
In the research and discourse on leadership, lines between the different types of proximity are often blurred.
Research on organizational leadership tends to investigate “diversity,” a term through which researchers and study participants blur together types of leader difference and proximity to service users. While some studies in the evidence framework like Baljeet Sandhu’s “Lived Experience Leadership” clearly define a specific type of proximity, most do not or combine different types of proximities into the term “diversity.”
A note on terminology
In our analysis, we generally attempt to use the terminology from the original sources in order to maintain fidelity to the research and discourse, understanding that the lack of clarity and intersectionality of the definitions of proximity mean that:
“
”
Definitions matter. This is a complex field…without appreciating and embracing the breadth, depth, and historical nature of this field, the sector will continue to pursue ineffective initiatives to meet the distinct leadership and development needs…
—Baljeet Sandhu,
Lived Experience Leadership
Source(s): Sandhu (2019)
17
Framing the Problem: Underrepresentation of Proximate Leaders in the Nonprofit Sector
There exist enormous inequities in hiring, promoting and investing in proximate leaders in the social sector
18
Source(s): Board Source (2017); The Center for Effective Philanthropy (2018)
9 out of 10 nonprofit executives in the U.S. are white.
While 60% of nonprofit executives report that in order for an organization to achieve its goals, it is very or extremely important for senior leadership to be diverse...
…only 17% report that their senior leadership is diverse.
While 55% of nonprofit executives report that it is very or extremely important for leadership to reflect the community served…
…only 23% report that their senior leadership does reflect the community served.
While evidence suggests proximate leaders are often best-positioned to lead solutions for their own communities, many experience bias, discrimination and neglect in the social sector
19
Source(s): Sandhu (2019); Fund the People (2019)
“People of color report experiencing more barriers and unique challenges to access, advancement and ascension to leadership in the [nonprofit] sector than their white colleagues.”
—Fund the People
“Recognition, celebration and investment in LEx [Lived Experience] leaders has long been neglected. LEx leaders have limited visibility and little access to opportunity, resources and support to shape or lead population and systems-level change…Many LEx leaders feel isolated and disenfranchised.”
—Baljeet Sandhu,
Lived Experience Leadership
“There is a lot of talent out there in our communities. Talent that we fail to identify and support.”
—Lived Experience Leader
Proximate workers’ barriers to getting hired and promoted into leadership positions are numerous and complex |
Salary and Benefits |
Salary and benefits are a barrier in hiring and retaining leaders of color and low-SES leaders. Competitive salary and benefits “allow for people of color, who have been historically and systematically deprived of the ability to accumulate wealth, to be able to work and stay in the field for longer periods of time, allowing for upward mobility and promotions.” —Nonprofit worker However, funders rate competitive starting salaries and benefits as less important for equitable access than nonprofit workers themselves do; thus, the lack of funding for these important items continues despite stated need. |
Hiring and Performance Evaluation |
While a majority of nonprofits and their boards cite a diverse candidate pool as important in the hiring process, one survey finds that only 11% of nonprofits actually ask candidates to complete an anonymous demographic survey in order to evaluate the diversity of the candidate pool. Additionally, more people of color report bias and discrimination in performance evaluations than their white peers. |
“Pedigree” and Race- and Gender-Based Bias |
There exists a widespread perception in the social sector that “pedigree” and technical expertise are valued more than lived experience, particularly at the senior leadership level: where one went to school, what degrees one completed, previous job titles. This disadvantages some proximate leaders without these types of résumes. That said, studies looking at candidate pools of nonprofit leaders indicate that there are not major disparities in levels of education, aspirations to be a leader, work experience or other qualifications between women and people of color and their white male peers. And yet, people of color and women are more frequently passed over for the job and paid less. Women of color with the highest levels of education are the most likely to be in administrative roles and least likely to hold senior leadership positions in nonprofits, they are paid significantly less than white men and men of color, and they more frequently report frustrations with inadequate salaries. This suggests that decisionmakers are biased against leaders of color and women. |
Relationships and Networks |
Nonprofit workers report that hiring and promotion are often based on social and professional networks, including relationships with funders, which can disadvantage proximate leaders who lack that social capital in powerful circles. |
|
Source(s): Boyarski and Kretman (2018); Fund the People (2019); Le (2015); Race to Lead (2018); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019)
20
Barriers to hiring and promotion into leadership positions �lead to a funneling and narrowing effect for proximate leaders
21
Source(s): Sandhu (2019)
“We’re not being trusted to lead the work and instead leadership of activities is being handed to those who tick job descriptions–largely people with privilege who’ve had the benefit of educational and financial support in the past.”
—Lived Experience Leader
“I have a sense that there is ‘nowhere for me to go’…completely demoralizing, especially if you’re innovative and you’re changing the lives of communities, and evidenced that.”
—Lived Experience Leader
“You could become a youth worker – you might become a project assistant. And then if you’re lucky a program manager, but…that’s it and you never get a seat at head office.”
—Lived experience leader
Source: Sandhu (2019)
For those proximate leaders who do ascend to leadership of nonprofit organizations, a major funding disparity exists—particularly for leaders of color
22
Source(s): Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Le (2019); Prosperity Now (2020)
Average revenues of Black-led nonprofit organizations in the U.S. are 24% smaller than the revenues of their white-led counterparts. Unrestricted net assets of Black-led nonprofit organizations are 76% smaller than their white-led counterparts.
Overall, only 11% of funder investments in the U.S. are directed to organizations led by people of color.
These disparities intersect with gender. Black women leaders receive less funding than either Black men or white women.
This funding disparity shows up in both type and amount of funding
23
Source(s): Bley and Le (2019); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Le (2017); Prosperity Now (2020); Whites (2019)
Funders tend to give
Charity dollars
Short-term grants
&
to organizations run by leaders of color,
instead of long-term investment dollars.
One root cause for the funding disparity is bias, which �creates a lack of trust between funders and grantees
24
Source(s): Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Finney (2020); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019)
Our research suggests that there is a significant trust gap between funders and nonprofit grantees, stemming from race-based, gender-based and lived experience-based bias. Proximate leaders cite a profound lack of trust from funders as a key barrier to securing funding: trust in the proximate leaders themselves, and trust in their culturally relevant approaches to social purpose work and running organizations.
Trust
Race and gender: People of color and women are disproportionately shut out of leadership roles in nonprofits and paid less, and Black women are granted less dollars from funders than either white women or Black men. This intersectional bias against Black women in the philanthropy-nonprofit relationship led organization leader Kathryn Finney to write, simply, “People don’t trust Black women with money.” Finney left the nonprofit world, in fact, because “the nonprofit world wasn’t made for someone like me…to be a Black woman builder and innovator—to be me—in the nonprofit world is to be constantly undervalued.”
Lived experience: Lived experience leaders share that their personal connection to the social injustices they are working to address make funders view them as too vulnerable, too hard to relate to and lacking credibility as skilled professionals. “The truth is, people in the sector judge you…it’s hard for people to hear stories that seem far-fetched in their own understanding of the world,” said one lived experience leader in an interview.
A related root cause are systems of evaluation used to measure grantees’ success
25
Funders frequently impose their own systems of evaluation on organizations led by proximate leaders and condition type and level of funding on the results of these evaluations. Those systems of evaluation include traditional measures and methods as well as resources to build the infrastructure for evaluation. Funders often do not consult organization leaders or their communities about how best to evaluate the impact of a given service on the community. This poses numerous problems for proximate leaders.
Measures and methods: White-dominant measures of organizational effectiveness and corresponding evaluation systems may not value all of the ways community-based nonprofit organizations measure their success. These traditional success metrics in philanthropy value data that can be easily quantified. While many proximate leaders value quantitative data as well, they also value qualitative data derived from methods like interviews and focus groups that can better capture the nuanced impact of their organization on the community and are more culturally relevant and inclusive to the community. These inclusive, community- and equity-driven measures and methods are not considered valid by many funders.
Resources for evaluation: Some smaller and/or newer community-based nonprofits led by proximate leaders do not yet have the infrastructure for robust evaluation, yet many funders won’t direct money toward building evaluation capacity. Thus, a vicious cycle occurs: no evaluation, no funding; no funding, no evaluation.
Evaluation
Source(s): Dean-Coffey (2020); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Enright (2017); Equitable Evaluation Initiative (2020); Hannum (2018); Le (2017); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020)
Many nonprofit and philanthropic leaders are ready for a �change to traditional evaluation systems that they believe do not serve proximate leaders or communities
26
Funders frequently impose their own, white-dominant systems of evaluation on organizations led by proximate leaders, and condition type and level of funding on the results of these evaluations. They often do not consult organization leaders or their communities about how best to evaluate the impact of a given service on the community. This poses numerous problems for proximate leaders.
“We have a complex understanding of our communities, human systems, cultural systems…It doesn’t lend easily to feedback forms and evaluation reports.”
—Lived Experience Leader
“Our sector’s current concept of effectiveness is simplistic, short-sighted, and ignores the values and perspectives of communities most affected by the issues we are working to solve. And yet, it is used as an ‘objective’ way to allocate funding and influence.”
—Vu Le, NonprofitAF
“The ability to assess and achieve results does not mean an organization is inherently effective…if the results are not those most desired by the people and communities being served…Nonprofits deemed ‘effective’ are often those most skilled at navigating the thicket of hurdles, requirements and processes put in place by philanthropy.”
—Kathryn Enright, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations
“Diversity and lived experience, although valuable, often merely ‘color’ methodological approaches that inherently give greater value and validity to certain types of data and analysis as opposed to others.”
—Jara Dean-Coffey, The Luminare Group
Source(s): Dean-Coffey (2020); Enright (2017); Le (2017); Sandhu (2019)
Additionally, proximate leaders cite tokenism and the �burden of representation as challenges
27
Source(s): Koya Leadership Partners (2019); Le (2019); Prosperity Now (2020); Sandhu (2019)
While elevating proximate leaders into positions of power holds numerous advantages for organizations (see evidence in the following section), proximate leaders share that it can come with challenges associated with operating in a demographically homogeneous leadership field.
In a 2020 survey of dozens of nonprofit leaders, a common theme was the negative impact of tokenism in the sector. According to survey respondents, funders often single out one or two “magic leaders of color” in their portfolio as “the philanthropic community’s token ethnic representative,” serving as “proof that the funder supports leaders of color.” As one lived experience leader writes in a different report, “They don’t understand what if feels like to be put on a pedestal and to tell your story again and again.” While this improves the foundation’s image, it may minimize support for other leaders of color.
Tokenism
Burden of Representation
Related to tokenism, leaders of color and leaders with lived experience are often burdened with being “charged with knowing the intricacies of all communities of color; understanding the causes and consequences of community challenges; and crafting solutions to target community needs.” More than a third of leaders of color in a 2020 survey cited frustrations with being asked to represent their community. One negative impact of this practice is that it takes away from their important work running their organizations effectively.
28
Effectiveness of Organizations Led by Proximate Leaders
In this section, we seek to understand how proximate �leaders influence organizational effectiveness
29
Organizational effectiveness is a framework to understand the success of an organization.
Outcomes
Indicators
Organizational effectiveness can be measured through:
Source(s): Dean-Coffey (2020); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Education First (2019); Enright (2017); Equitable Evaluation Initiative (2020); Hannum (2018); Le (2017); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020)
In terms of outcomes, organizations with more diverse leadership perform better financially
30
Source(s): McKinsey & Company (2018)
Two outcomes that measure organizational effectiveness are
financial success and impact.
Financial Success
Impact
Multiple large-scale studies in the for-profit sector show that organizations with more diverse leadership and more diverse staff in terms of race and gender overall perform better financially—and organizations with less diversity perform less well financially—compared to industry means.
Leadership diversity specifically is a market differentiator that shifts market share to companies over time.
Our research did not uncover evidence connecting proximate leaders and organizational impact on the population served. The research on proximate leadership remains nascent, and impact is an area worth further research to better understand the difference proximate leaders make in their communities.
OUTCOMES
31
INDICATORS
Innovation
In addition to outcomes, organizational effectiveness �can be measured through internal indicators that are associated with outcomes. One such indicator is employee innovation
Organizations with diverse leadership are found to be more innovative—producing innovative ideas, and fostering a work culture where those ideas are embraced—which is a key driver of competitive strength and long-term growth. The data suggest that homogeneity stifles innovation.
�The Center for Talent Innovation reports: “Diverse individuals are better attuned to the unmet needs of consumers or clients like themselves. Indeed their insight is critical to identifying and addressing new market opportunities.”
“My lived experience has directly informed most of the innovative ideas I’ve activated to benefit our communities.” —Lived Experience Leader
Source: The Center for Talent Innovation (2013)
Source(s): Boston Consulting Group (2019); Deloitte (2011); McKinsey & Company (2018); Promise54 (2016); Sandhu (2019); The Center for Talent Innovation (2013)
32
INDICATORS
Research suggests diverse teams may be more effective in problem-solving and decisionmaking
Understanding the problem and making informed decisions
Leaders who have shared lived experience with the population served by their organization may better understand the problem from a firsthand perspective, and thus may be more equipped to make the critical decisions needed to address it. As one lived experience leaders shares, “Colleagues have turned to me to unpack the systemic issues faced by my community, to help their work and create more impactful decisions.”
The effect of diverse group composition on decisionmaking
A 2018 McKinsey report on diversity in business finds that more diverse companies are better able to improve their decisionmaking than their non-diverse counterparts.
In terms of the actual process of decisionmaking, an influential experimental study on the psychology of decisionmaking in a mock jury setting suggests that diverse decisionmaking groups consider more facts, make fewer factual errors and raise issues of race more often than all-white decisionmaking groups.
“Lived Experience leaders bring to bear experience that no learned or earned qualification can match. Many professionals in the social sector are trying to solve problems many do not fully understand or appreciate. Lived Experience leaders are connected to the realities of the problem they are addressing in their social purpose work.” –Baljeet Sandhu, Lived Experience Leadership
Problem-Solving and Decisionmaking
Source(s): Rock and Grant (2016); Sandhu (2019); Sommers (2006)
33
INDICATORS
Employees’ experiences with diversity, equity and inclusion
at their organizations are linked to their levels of satisfaction, retention and net promoter scores, all indicators of organizational effectiveness
Research suggests that diverse organizations have higher levels of employee satisfaction and engagement. The large-scale for-profit studies we cited earlier that found the correlation between gender and cultural and ethnic diversity and better financial performance is due in part to improved employee satisfaction.
Satisfaction and Engagement
Retention
Employees led by a CEO of the same race/ethnicity are more likely to perceive the organization as fair, which positively influences their retention. Thus, organizations with leaders of color may be more likely to retain employees of color.
Employees—particularly employees of color—who experience diversity, equity and inclusion in an organization report higher intent to stay according to multiple nonprofit sector surveys. The majority of employees who leave an organization due to lack of diversity and inclusiveness are people of color.
Net Promoter Scores
Employees are more likely to recommend to a friend (or, “promote”) diverse, equitable and inclusive organizations. Seeing diverse groups of employees advancing to more senior roles is a major difference between promoters and non-promoters: In a 2018 survey of education nonprofit workers, 61% of “promoters” report seeing a diverse group of employees advancing, versus just 29% of non-promoters report this.
Source(s): Koya Leadership Partners (2018); McKinsey & Company (2018); Promise54 (2016)
34
And diverse organizations are better able to attract top
talent
Our research suggests that diverse organizations are better able to attract talent. The majority of job candidates of all races consider the diversity of an organization as an influencing factor in evaluating companies and job offers, including leadership diversity. This number is higher for candidates of color.
Talent
INDICATORS
Source: Glassdoor (2014)
Source(s): Glassdoor (2014); Koya Leadership Partners (2018)
35
Approach of proximate leaders
In addition to organizational effectiveness, our research�investigated proximate leaders’ approach to social purpose work
36
Approach, as opposed to effectiveness, describes how proximate leaders design and implement their work rather than the results of this work.
Elements of approach we investigated include:
Staffing and Demographic Data
Inclusive Culture
Connected Staff teams
Community Input
Evaluation
Source(s): Boston Consulting Group (2018); Dean-Coffey (2020); Education First (2019); Enright (2017); Equitable Evaluation Initiative (2020); Hannum (2018); Le (2017); McKinsey & Company (2018); Promise54 (2016); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019); The Center for Talent Innovation (2013); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020)
37
Staffing and Demographic Data
Diverse leadership teams are more likely to track compensation by race and ethnicity, which is a step toward more equitable staffing and promotion
Organizations with higher leadership diversity are more likely to track compensation and advancement by race and ethnicity. These are the type of data that provide vital insights into equity at the organization. Even so, very few organizations overall track this type of important information, as seen below in a recent survey of nonprofits.
Source: Promise54 (2016)
Source(s): Promise54 (2016)
38
Inclusive Culture
Organizations with diverse leadership better promote inclusive cultures and build connected staff teams
Organizations with diverse leadership better promote inclusive cultures where workers feel more welcome to share their ideas.
Source(s): Boston Consulting Group (2018); McKinsey & Company (2018); Race Forward (2020); Sandhu (2019); The Center for Talent Innovation (2013)
Connected Staff Teams
Source: The Center for Talent Innovation (2013)
Lived experience leaders comment on the power lived experience leadership can have in building connected staff teams, which helps colleagues who don’t have shared lived experience with their population served better understand and connect with the issues they’re addressing and the population they’re serving. This can help teams develop a more “nuanced understanding of their collective work.”
39
Community Input
Diverse leadership teams tend to seek broader input from service users when making decisions and evaluating impact
Diverse education nonprofit leadership teams seek broader input from their population served when making decisions.
Evaluation
Our analysis of the research and discourse on evaluation practices in the nonprofit sector suggests that proximate leaders may be more likely to collect qualitative data on the community’s experiences with the organization and beliefs about its impact as part of their evaluation system. This is aligned with frameworks of “equitable evaluation,” which work against structural bias in dominant evaluation systems by using inclusive data that empower communities who are traditionally excluded from the research world.
Source: Promise54 (2016)
Source(s): Dean-Coffey (2020); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Enright (2017); Equitable Evaluation Initiative (2020); Hannum (2018); Le (2017); Promise54 (2016); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020)
40
Strengths and Competencies of Lived Experience Leaders
In addition to approach, lived experience leaders cite a set
of leadership characteristics that are unique to lived experience leaders
Courage, resilience and adaptability
Source(s): Sandhu (2019)
Purpose, passion and drive
Empathy and compassion
Equity and Justice
Vulnerability
Love and Generosity
“There’s a great deal of courage and resilience in fighting against injustice, not giving up and turning that energy into love and drive to create change in the world.”
“I wanted my negative experience of custody, and what led up to it, to stand for something. To help one person or save one other life would count.”
“You don’t need to imagine yourself in someone[‘s] shoes. You were once there…it allows you to connect with people”
“The fight for justice for my communities gives a lot of meaning to my life.”
“People are kind of will[ing] to do anything to avoid facing the terrors of their soul…For many of us, we’ve faced them head on and come out the other side.”
“Our own determination to overcome our own challenges and oppression has driven us to our work. By that very nature, we never stop thinking about our communities.”
41
Recommendations for Philanthropy
Four key recommendations for philanthropy surfaced from our research on proximate leadership
Practice trust-based philanthropy
Practice equitable evaluation
Fund higher compensation for nonprofit leaders
Fund organizations’ equitable hiring and promotion practices
42
1
2
3
4
Source(s): Boyarski and Kretman (2018); Dean-Coffey (2020); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Enright (2017); Equitable Evaluation Initiative (2020); Fund the People (2019); Hannum (2018); Le (2015); Le (2017); Race to Lead (2018); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020)
1: Practicing trust-based philanthropy provides proximate leaders with the resources, support and relationships they need to thrive
43
Because the research suggests that lack of trust between funders and grantees is a root cause for the disparity in leadership positions and funding for proximate leaders, practicing trust-based philanthropy is one way to address this barrier. The Trust Based Philanthropy Project recommends:
Provide Multi-Year, Unrestricted Funding
Do the “Homework”
Simplify & Streamline Paperwork
Be Transparent & Responsive
Solicit & Act on Feedback
Offer Support Beyond the Check
Source(s): Boyarski and Kretman (2018); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Finney (2020); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019)
2: Practicing equitable evaluation will remove obstacles �for proximate leaders and increase cultural relevance
44
Because the research suggests that funder evaluation practices are problematic for proximate leaders and their communities and contribute to leadership and funding disparities, engaging in equitable evaluation is another way to address these issues. The Equitable Evaluation initiative recommends that:
Evaluation and evaluative work should be in service of equity:
Evaluative work can and should answer critical questions about the:
Evaluative work should be designed and implemented commensurate with the values underlying equity work:
“Trust the people most affected to define effectiveness… Ask the people served who benefit from nonprofits’ work if they think the programs and services are effective, and then trust their opinions.”
—Vu Le, NonprofitAF
“Ground effectiveness on race, equity and social justice.”
—Vu Le, Nonprofit AF
Source(s): Dean-Coffey (2020); Echoing Green and The Bridgespan Group (2020); Enright (2017); Equitable Evaluation Initiative (2020); Hannum (2018); Le (2017); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019); Trust Based Philanthropy Project (2020)
3 & 4: Funding competitive compensation and equitable �hiring and promotion practices will make nonprofit leadership more possible for many proximate leaders
45
Compensation is a key barrier to entry and retention in the nonprofit sector for many proximate leaders for whom wealth accumulation has systematically been denied, making financial stability of paramount importance. Women and people of color are paid significantly less than their white male counterparts across the nonprofit sector, and in general, nonprofit workers are paid very little for the important work they do to address social issues.
Ensuring that nonprofit staff are paid competitively will attract and retain important talent in proximate leaders, ensuring that those closest to the problem are the ones leading the work to address it. However, studies show that funders do not think salary is as important to equitable access as nonprofits workers themselves do. This perception needs to shift, and funds should be reallocated accordingly without fear of funding “overhead.”
Compensation
Hiring and Promotion
Funders can play a role in ensuring that grantee organizations put in place equitable hiring and advancement practices. This includes expanded demographic data collection of candidates for hire and promotion, leadership succession plans, and professional development for proximate staff.
Source(s): Boyarski and Kretman (2018); Fund the People (2019); Le (2015); Race to Lead (2018); Race to Lead (2019); Sandhu (2019)
Acknowledgements
3 |
46
Acknowledgements
47
Special thanks to Cristina Muñoz and the 2020 Pahara Institute Next-Gen Fellows for their thought partnership in this research.
Any errors or judgments in this deck are entirely ours at Education First.
Thank you!
Education-First.com