This is a crosspost with the Leadership Learning Community posted Thursday, March 24th. The mission of LLC is to” strive to advance a more just and equitable society by transforming the way leadership development work is conceived, conducted and evaluated.”  Their members include a diverse group of funders, practitioners and consultants, all of who are engaged in leadership development work.

When asked to prepare a post for the new Leadership Learning Community guest blog series, I was honored. Then panic set in. What could I add to the wealth and depth of research, writing and discussion on leadership? As a consultant I come in touch with leadership and leaders all the time and as the principal and founder of a consulting practice, I am a leader and strive to exercise leadership, but still, I was stymied. I decided to let it simmer for a bit. And then I came face to face with a truth I have avoided for some time now…. the discussions, dialogues, debates and desire for documentation of leadership challenge me. There, I said it. It’s out in the open. I know I cannot be the only one.

So, in the spirit of a blog being an opportunity to share ideas and engages others in reflection and perhaps exchange, here is what comes up for me when I unpack my challenge with the leadership discussion:

• Identity – How and in what ways does it come in to play in terms of one’s understanding of leadership, experience with it, and how one exercises it? If I use myself as an example, how do the various parts of me (i.e., female, African-American, 40+, born on the East Coast, heterosexual, etc.) influence how and in what ways I experience and exercise leadership? Does one have primacy?
•  Context - Does the way an individual exercises leadership change depending on context? I know I show up differently (or try to) based on who is in the room and intention. I also know that because of my identity, I am perceived a certain way before I say a word. I am mindful of this when I think about how to actively exercise leadership.
• Balance of Art and Science – In our efforts to identify the component parts of leadership and what supports and strengthens it are we missing the “magic” that happens when people come together and a new context and culture is created? Networks, community mobilizations, even flash mobs are examples of context in which leadership seems different than in a traditional organizational model. But leadership also looks different depending on the identity of the leader regardless of the structure in which they are working.
•  Multiple Frames-Often new ideas, research or opportunities cause a shift and frequently rejection of past approaches or frameworks which have proven to be effective and impactful. I worry that we turn away from what we know in search of some evasive and seemingly more complex approach or solution. I want us to embrace an “and” framework where we are willing, able to identify and apply the most relevant and appropriate frame given identity, context and the balance of art and science.
• Leadership Products – Lastly, how and in what ways does it matter if we have leaders who exercise leadership in whatever is currently deemed best practice? For me, and the client partners with whom we are honored to work, their exercise of leadership and role as leaders is in service of something more than a healthy organization but to contribute to a more equitable society, to level the playing field as it were.

I want to thank LLC for creating both virtual and in-person spaces to explore leadership in all its manifestations and its relevance to the work of the social and philanthropic sectors. The opportunity to have dialogue and debate advances critical analysis, theory and ideally appropriate and impactful application.

For the past 18 months or so, jdcPartnerships has worked with CompassPoint NonProfit Services Staff and Board in developing, refining and applying their emerging Theory of Change (I can hear some of you groaning) to their work.  A recent application of this framework was to NonProfit Day 2010. For purposes of reference, our model of a Theory of Change includes the following components: Issue(s) Addressed, Target Audience, Core Strategies, Values/Guiding Principles, Assumptions, Anticipated Change (Long Term) AND Research/Evidence.

Given discussions last year about “blowing up the conference model” by Teri Behrens, and Sean Stannard-Stockton ”more-ideas-for-blowing-up-the-conference-model”  among others AND that spring conference season is now upon us, we thought it might be interesting to share a glimpse behind the scenes of designing a conference.  Nelson Layag, Project Director graciously agreed to share his experience using a Theory of Change framework to the immensely popular and well attended NonProfit Day held annually in San Francisco. See NonProfit Day Session Materials and Selected Resources for information if you were unlucky enough not to have attended.

Q. So How Did We Do It?

A. When we  began planning Nonprofit Day the full staff and Board were in the midst of developing our theory of change. CompassPoint’s theory of change focused us on what exactly we were working towards (in other words, to what end) and what ways we were most likely to make progress towards those outcomes.  Thanks to Jara’s suggestion, we used a simple format for creating an overall framework for the conference which helped us use the theory of change as a foundation for the planning and execution of Nonprofit Day.  This framework was our guiding document and helped shape theme, overall outcomes, speakers,  and structure.

Q. What Was Different?

A. A big difference was  balancing the tension between the specific outcomes we wanted to achieve AND those we could achievein a one day convening.  We had great discussion on questions like “is it realistic to achieve this outcome?” and “what can/should we try to achieve in our one day convenings?”.  We also worked with our speakers on developing specific learning outcomes for each session and evaluated to those specific outcomes.  We asked attendees to hand in their evaluations after each session so our return was much higher than in the past.   We gained some good insights such as what a panel discussion could or could not achieve.  We also saw things like participants thinking the presenter was great, but rating lower when asked if learning outcomes had been met.  (Read NonProfit Day 2010 Eavluation Findings, Lessons Learned and Implications for more detail.)

Another difference was how we intentionally lived particular parts of the values stated in our theory of change.  For example, the value of humor was expressed in the large scale “mad libs” game and the speakers we chose were aligned with our values on social equity and multiculturalism.

Q. What Next?

A.Nonprofit Day 2011 of course (it’s on September 19 – so save the date),  but infused with the learnings gained not just from last year’s Nonprofit Day but from all our major convenings held in the past year.  Here’s three things that you’ll see from us this year:

1. Better developed learning outcomes and evaluations (along with being more explicit about those outcomes to our participants)
2. Get more specific what “networking” outcomes we want to achieve in this large scale event and then design to those outcomes
3. Continue to use our Theory of Change as the guiding foundation

In a few hours, I will be among grantmakers from across northern California at the War Memorial in San Francisco for the 2011 Northern California Grantmakers Annual Meeeting to celebrate its 30th Anniversary and to deepen our understanding of the diversity and complexity of the communities we serve and the implications for philanthropy.  As an invited guest (NCG is a client), I am always interested in the dialogue, deliberation and decision-making that informs a field which finds itself working the continuum from art to science and passion to objectivity.  The last NCG annual meeting  I attended was in 2006 and featured Geoffrey Canada, President & CEO, Harlem Children’s Zone whose vision, passion and effectiveness had sparked a movement in both the public and philanthropic sector.

The event’s title Our Patchwork Nation: Exploring Communities From Numbers To Nuance highlights the tension and often disconnect between the desire and often obsession to quantify and the insights and evidence that come from qualitative information that bring meaning and context to the numbers.  The keynote, Dante Chinni, founder of a Patchwork Nation, will share his thoughts and likely questions and challenges to the room to further incorporate this lens to their work.

As someone who plays in both the evaluation and strategy arenas, the relationship between qualitative and quantitave information is clear and undeniable, as is the delicate balance between objectivity and contextualized analysis.  Our work is deeper, richer and ultimately contributes to a greater likelihood of change when there is room to work the grey areas in service of our clients and ultimately to support lasting social change that moves us towards a more equitable society.

It will no doubt be an informative, engaging, validating and for some a transformative afternoon. It’s an honor to be in the space.