Community - sunlea.org.uk€¦ · Web viewAdjust the Equal Opportunities Policy if necessary so that you are not prevented from making internal appointments of senior staff if you

Working for innovation and independence in communities

Successful Succession: Sustainable leadership without taboos in the voluntary sector

The Final Report of the“Successful Succession”project funded by the Welsh Assembly Government’sNew Ideas Fund

by Community Projects Centre2 Sunlea CrescentPontypoolTorfaenNP4 8ADTel/fax 01495 769000mjw@c-p-c.freeserve.co.ukwww.communityprojectscentre.org.uk

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________APRIL 2008

mailto:[email protected]

Successful Succession Sustainable leadership without taboos in the voluntary sector

The Final Report of the Successful Succession project funded by the Welsh Assembly Government’s New Idea Fund

Contents

1: Summary 3

2: Introduction 6What’s the problem?.............................................................................6How do we know there are problems?..................................................7When is there a problem?......................................................................8

3: Disaster areas – examples of succession problems 11What can possibly go wrong if there are two strong leaders?.............11Management paralysis.........................................................................11When a deputy is not enough..............................................................12Immovable and irreplaceable chairs....................................................13

4: The awareness gap 15The research findings..........................................................................15Why does sustainable leadership have such a low profile?................16“Succession taboo”..............................................................................18

5: Vulnerability and risk 20A real issue and real risks....................................................................20The risk indicators...............................................................................21Making practical use of the indicators................................................22

6: Good practice 24Exploring the options..........................................................................24Safety measures...................................................................................24

7: Raising awareness and delivering support 29Meeting support needs........................................................................29Developing resources and materials....................................................30Sources of support...............................................................................31Raising awareness...............................................................................32

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________“Successful Succession”– Sustainable leadership without taboos 1

The mentoring pilot.............................................................................33

Appendix 1: Research methodology and outcomes 36

Appendix 2: Founder’s Syndrome 39

Appendix 3: The “Successful Succession” Questionnaire 40

Appendix 4: The consultation slide show 45

THE SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP TOOLKIT 471: Checklist of Sustainable Leadership Risk Indicators2: Guidance Notes for Managers and Board Members3: The Sustainable Leadership Mentoring Procedure4: Mentoring Evaluation Form


1: Summary

1 Aim of the report: The present Report is intended as a practical document to raise awareness of sustainable leadership issues in the voluntary sector and provide tools to start addressing them.

2 The research: The Report is based on research carried out during 2007 and 2008 by the community development charity Community Projects Centre using funding under the Welsh Assembly Government’s New Ideas Fund. The research involved: a questionnaire-based survey and interviews consultation seminars pilot mentoring on leadership succession issues the preparation of a diagnostic tool and guidance notes for groups.

3 The sustainable leadership challenge: The research demonstrates that: community organisations and charities may experience serious management

and governance problems if they fail to prepare in advance for the impact of changes to their leadership

the problem is most acute when a dynamic founder member of an organisation has been in post a long time and colleagues regard them as “irreplaceable”

organisations may also experience difficulties if a leader who has been in office for a long time blocks progress and prevents colleagues from contributing fully

even when there is no immediate threat, management can be weakened if the leadership succession is not taken seriously

sustainable leadership issues are a widely neglected challenge for the voluntary sector, with the result that organisations are commonly unaware of the risks they face and experience problems unnecessarily.

4 The research findings: The research also found that: large and small organisations, charities and non charities are equally at risk more complex organisations such as development trusts, social enterprises

and community regeneration projects appear to be at slightly greater risk than other types of organisation

awareness of risks is very variable, even among colleagues working together unsurprisingly, the greatest risks of succession problems are experienced by

groups which make no preparation for leadership changes even so, it is difficult to evaluate relative risk or predict which organisations

will actually experience problems.

5 Examples of problems: The Report provides a number of short case studies of organisations which experienced major difficulties with their leadership succession. In severe cases the problems result in closure.

6 The awareness gap: There is a variety of different reasons to account for the low profile of sustainable succession issues in the voluntary sector:


the differences in governance and resources between the voluntary sector and the public and private sectors

other pressing priorities for management staff the lack of guidance from support agencies different perceptions of the risks and problems among work colleagues the loss of evidence when organisations fail and disappear “succession taboo”.

7 Succession taboo: CPC identifies a serious reluctance on the part of many people working in community organisations and charities to discuss potential leadership succession problems which may be difficult or painful to deal with. The obstacles include fear of being disloyal, sensitivity about confronting older people in positions of power, and the apparently insoluble problem of “indispensable” leaders.

8 Tackling the risks: The report recommends reducing the risks by: raising awareness of the dangers among community groups, support

agencies and other stakeholders using tools which create opportunities to discuss leadership issues openly focusing on good practice drawn from the research developing sustainable leadership policies which require organisations to

make adjustments to the way they are managed and governed well in advance of any change of leadership.

9 The Sustainable Leadership Toolkit: CPC has developed a “Sustainable Leadership Toolkit” which provides practical approaches for tackling succession issues. This includes: The Checklist of Risk Indicators which can be used by groups in-house or

with facilitators or mentors. The checklist was trialled by CPC as part of the research.

Guidance Notes for Managers and Board Members with step-by-step advice on developing and implementing a Sustainable Leadership Policy.

A mentoring procedure to enable groups to explore sustainable leadership safely under the guidance of a mentor or facilitator. The report also describes a mentoring trial carried out by CPC with two community regeneration organisations.

10 Raising awareness of the challenge: Recommended action includes: sustainable leadership workshops at voluntary sector conferences publicising and disseminating the Checklist of Risk Indicators, the Guidance

Notes, and the mentoring procedure disseminating information through the websites of organisations which

endorse the research. engaging with funders, government and other stakeholders to make the case

for modest resources for sustainable leadership training and awareness raising.

11 Assistance from support agencies: Raising awareness and delivering basic information and advice on sustainable leadership will necessarily involve enlisting the co-operation of:


councils for voluntary service Wales Council for Voluntary Action umbrella bodies such as the Development Trusts Association Wales individual development workers voluntary sector training organisations.

12 The way ahead: Understanding of sustainable leadership is starting from a low base, and for the time being ambitious training or development programmes are probably unrealistic. Further research will be needed to refine the diagnostic and guidance tools. But the best hope for the immediate future is to lobby support organisations to help with awareness raising and to spread the word using conventional publicity media, websites and conferences.

13 The long term goal is to make the role and importance of leadership properly understood throughout the voluntary sector so that achieving sustainable leadership naturally becomes an integral part of general planning and training for good governance and effective management. More attention also needs to be given to sustainable leadership issues in partnership bodies.


2: Introduction

2.1 The aims of this Report: This Report is intended to provide a practical approach for starting to address sustainable leadership issues in the voluntary sector. It aims to: raise awareness of the need for voluntary organisations to develop

sustainable leadership arrangements and prepare for the time when their leadership will change

suggest practical ways in which this can be achieved indicate how CPC’s Successful Succession research findings can be

disseminated provide initial drafts of basic guidance material for community groups and

charities to use to start addressing their own leadership issues summarise the research which has been carried out.

What’s the problem?

2.2 The unmentioned challenge: One of the main reasons that sustainable leadership is a challenge for the voluntary sector is that it is talked about so little. The reality is that if community organisations and charities fail to manage a major change to their leadership in an effective way the consequences can be catastrophic – years of progress squandered, stagnation and lost momentum, huge financial costs, and, in the worst cases, closure. Yet many of those involved in running at-risk organisations are either completely unaware that a succession problem may exist or confidently believe it will never seriously affect them. At the other extreme, others may recognise vaguely that a challenge is looming which is potentially so serious and insoluble that they are reluctant to think about it and unable to talk about it, let alone take action.

2.3 Getting to grips with the risks: The dangers for organisations which ignore sustainable leadership issues are real enough. But planning for and achieving an orderly succession to new leadership when a long-serving and possibly “irreplaceable” leader leaves (whether this is the manager or the chair of the organisation) are not in themselves difficult or complicated. This Report sets out to show some basic common-sense approaches which should change the status of the challenge from a threat to a strategy planning issue, and the necessary response from trouble-shooting to routine risk management.

2.4 More than a single problem: What may be more difficult for people who are coming to this issue for the first time is recognising that it usually involves a series of challenges, rather than a single problem to solve. It works like this: lack of preparation: many organisations are likely to face severe

difficulties and setbacks if they fail to make provision for the time when their leadership changes – and the longer a leader is in post the greater the risks


lack of awareness: most staff and board or committee members are probably unaware of this, because sustainable leadership has traditionally been given very little attention in guidance for community groups

lack of openness: for some people, even if they are aware of possible dangers, leadership change is a taboo subject which cannot be discussed openly

lack of help: those organisations who look to support agencies for advice and guidance on their leadership succession are unlikely to find it because awareness among trainers and development workers is also limited; funders generally do not recognise its significance either.

lack of predictability: research suggests that, although it is possible to identify some organisations whose risks from a change in leadership are higher than average, it is probably impossible to predict who will actually experience damaging setbacks.

How do we know there are problems?

2.5 Community Projects Centre: CPC is a community development charity which provides consultancy support, advice and training to community groups and charities throughout Wales. It has been a pioneer since the 1970s in the field of social enterprise, and has helped with the creation and growth of many individual development trusts, community-run businesses and regeneration projects.

2.6 The “Successful Succession” study: Research was carried out throughout Wales by CPC during 2007 and early 2008. It was funded by the Welsh Assembly Government’s New Ideas Fund.

2.7 The purpose of the study was to explore the need for leadership succession planning in the voluntary sector and the risks of ignoring the issue, and to identify good practice which can be shared more widely and bad practice to be avoided.

2.8 Other research and resources: Leadership succession emerged as a neglected subject, which is occasionally referred to in literature and training materials as a side issue in planning exit strategies and developing leadership qualities. “Founder’s Syndrome” is recognised in North America (where it refers to the situation when an original dynamic leader becomes a barrier to change). But it is rejected as unhelpful by the Charity Commission in the UK. See Appendix 2.

2.9 The research: The research involved a questionnaire, widely circulated by email and post to over 600 voluntary organisations, and personal interviews. Questionnaire data on over 100 personnel, and interviews with 16 organisations were analysed. Appendix 1 provides more detail on the way the research was carried out.

2.10 Outcomes:


Research report: CPC produced an Interim Report to document the outcomes of the questionnaire research and interviews in December 2007.

Guidance material: The present Final Report departs from the practice of simply recording the research findings, in preference for providing an accessible account of the issues and the action required to handle them. It is hoped that it will provide guidance and good practice for community organisations and charities and for support agencies which have an interest in improving management and governance in the voluntary sector. (But it is recognised that guidance material will also need to take a number of other forms in order to reach the widest audience.)

Sustainable Leadership Mentoring: This Report includes details of pilot mentoring sessions carried out as part of the study which CPC believes are replicable by support workers in a range of different circumstances.

When is there a problem?

2.11 Some definitions: “Leadership succession” may not be a familiar term, but it has no

specialist meaning. It refers simply to the change from one leader to another. In the case of paid staff, it normally involves a familiar staff recruitment process, and for trustees, committee members, directors etc is usually a matter of appointing a new chair from within the existing group. However, this Report argues that the process for handling the succession should involve rather more planning and thought than this description implies.

“Sustainable leadership” is a useful term for describing the goal of seamless changes in leadership which avoid the upheavals and suspension of progress and development which are often experienced in the voluntary sector. As a piece of management shorthand it fits well with the aspirations of organisations to achieve sustainability in financial and environmental terms and more generally. The phrase “sustainable leadership” emerged spontaneously during consultations for the study, and was immediately adopted as a recognisable objective.

2.12 Loss of a valued leader: When a long-serving or “indispensable” leader (a volunteer chair or paid chief officer) leaves an organisation the consequences can be: loss of knowledge of how the organisation works, its policies and

procedures – leading to uncertainty, disagreement and poor judgement among those who remain

loss of key skills – such as fundraising, financial management, project and personnel management – with resulting financial and management problems

loss of leadership, direction, sound decision-making, internal stability, and discipline

loss of momentum – new opportunities rejected, growth put on hold loss of credibility – with users, funders, supporters closure of smaller organisations – when there is no one else willing to keep

the group going.


2.13 When a leader does not leave soon enough: A second type of leadership problem arises when an officer or manager who was once a dynamic leader has now been around so long that they cannot be challenged and will not leave. The negative effects can be: lost opportunities, stagnation, decline in the service provided, funding

problems weak boards and committees with frustrated members problems with recruiting new trustees out of date practices demoralised and ineffective staff.

2.14 Understanding the risks of succession problems: The research shows that: both large and small organisations can be affected almost any kind of voluntary group or charity may be vulnerable organisations may be vulnerable irrespective of the type of constitutional or

management structure they use, and whether they are charities or not it seems possible that complex organisations with a variety of activities and

roles such as development trusts and other regeneration projects are particularly vulnerable

the problem of immoveable leaders often seems insoluble, but action can be taken

organisations can be vulnerable to problems connected with their leadership succession even when some workers can see the danger signs – awareness of the possible risk needs to be shared openly among all senior staff and trustees, and there needs to be a willingness to act

unsurprisingly, the biggest risk is faced by organisations which do not prepare themselves for dealing with leadership issues – those organisations which consciously plan ahead seem to avoid the most serious consequences of a change of leadership

a list of indicators which for the first time can help to identify vulnerable organisations has been compiled by CPC; these were welcomed during consultations as a useful contribution to understanding the risks involved

even so, CPC believes that it remains difficult to predict how individual “at risk” organisations will actually react

when they are faced with a change of leadership to evaluate the comparative vulnerability of different organisations.


3: Disaster areas – examples of succession problems

3.1 Aim: This section draws on CPC’s research to provide mini case studies which illustrate some of the more serious problems which can result from the failure to tackle the succession issue adequately in advance. Some examples have been chosen to show the unpredictability of the circumstances which actually precipitate a crisis. It is not appropriate to identify by name most of the organisations referred to in this section, and where necessary some details have been changed to protect their anonymity.

What can possibly go wrong if there are two strong leaders?

3.2 Taff Bargoed Development Trust: Taff Bargoed Development Trust, which operates a climbing centre, conference centre and restaurant in Trelewis in the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough area, is today an organisation with considerable potential for business enterprise and community development. But its early leadership history has cast a long shadow, and the trust is still working to recover from the financial and management crises which were precipitated more than five years ago.

3.3 Too much or too little leadership? TBDT started life in the 1990s with both a strongly committed and highly motivated chair and a skilled and innovative chief executive. Yet both leaders tended to be independent-minded, poor at sharing information and delegating, and keen to protect their respective power. This resulted in weak governance and imperfect financial monitoring by the trustees and unregulated business management. The chief executive eventually left and soon afterwards the trust was devastated by the early death of their chair. This twin blow robbed TBDT not only of its key leaders but also effectively of all of its management systems, with no mechanism in reserve to take their place. After this, its activities floundered for several years. Financial collapse became a possibility at one stage and the £1m community asset of the Taff Bargoed Centre was perilously close to being lost. The trustees and staff are moving their project forward again, but they still bear the scars of this debilitating experience, and acknowledge that years of potential progress have been lost.

Management paralysis

3.4 When the manager and board fall out: A well-established and fairly substantial environmental organisation became paralysed in a dispute between a long-standing chief executive and several experienced board members including the Chair. The schedule of board meetings and everything except the organisation’s routine work came to a halt in a standoff which lasted months. Board members, who felt they had previously been kept at arms length by their CEO, were unsure of their powers and authority after communications broke down. Even after the


board recognised that they would have to take action to resolve the crisis, they remained helpless because there was no designated deputy chief officer with the responsibility to take control. In due course the CEO decided to leave to avoid causing further problems, but it was already clear to the board members that some key policies and procedures had not been written down, and existed mainly in the head of their former manager.

3.5 The lost year: Recruiting a new manager, re-establishing systems and rebuilding trust and co-operation with the staff took many more months, during which critical fundraising work suffered. When existing funding ended there were no replacement grants and staff layoffs inevitably followed. The immediate disruption to its management set back the organisation and its environmental work by at least 12 months, but the suspension of development and fundraising made the impact much longer lasting. More dispiriting for the board, though, was the realisation after the dust had settled that if a deputy manager had been in post it would have been almost impossible for the breakdown in relationships to have been so complete and so terminal. A deputy would have provided mediation which could easily have prevented an initial misunderstanding from escalating into a destructive crisis. Or at the very least the board would have had someone they could rely on to keep things running while the dispute was settled. Some basic succession planning could not perhaps have prevented the initial argument, but it would have certainly made the consequences less painful and less expensive.

When a deputy is not enough

3.6 The challenge of the complex monster: A pioneering social enterprise organisation in South Wales had grown into a complex and hard-to-manage monster, thanks largely to the energy and enthusiasm of its manager who had helped to get the project started more than 10 years earlier. Its varied activities included a community newspaper, community development work and trading ventures which supported paid staff, training and opportunities for a large team of volunteers. Low wages enabled the project to turn in small annual profit which was covenanted to a sister charity and channelled back into training. Low pay also meant that the organisation could never afford to pay competitive rates for skilled management, and it depended heavily on the good will of everyone involved. Even so, some aspects of succession planning were in place before the manager made the alarming announcement that he was leaving for another (better paid) job. Policies and procedures were already documented in an operations manual, and the existing deputy manager was now rapidly trained up to take over the management of the business.

3.7 Running out of control: It was not immediately obvious that the new manager was not up to the job. He kept financial reports from the compliant board, and went on a spending spree to buy equipment which could never be paid for. The staff started to assert their independence in a distracting and divisive row about environmental issues, and quality control started to go down hill. The former manager was now working outside the area, but he sensed that the inexperienced new leader might need help.


He made an urgent appeal to a support agency for business advice, but it brought no response. His own offers of help were unwelcome to the staff who politely asked to be left to learn from their own mistakes, and the business continued to deteriorate. Within a year the patience of creditors was exhausted, and the enterprise was forced to stop trading with the loss of six paid jobs and places for nearly 30 volunteers.

3.8 Blame? It is easy to blame the manager who took over the project. But the organisation suffered from the effects of haphazard and opportunistic development common among the most dynamic community organisations. By the time its founder left it may simply have become unmanageable, particularly with the unattractive level of the CEO’s salary. Better training, outside business advice, restructured activities and stronger board control together might have saved it. And an earlier start to succession planning could have highlighted the need for all those adjustments.

Immovable and irreplaceable chairs

3.9 Introduction: While dynamic and defensive chief officers can present challenges for larger and more complex community organisations, smaller groups with few staff which depend heavily on their chairs for leadership can run into a different type of problem. Here a long-serving or authoritarian chair can block progress and cause stagnation. Even so, experiences are varied.

3.10 Waiting till the end: The research looked at two organisations where elderly chairs wielded so much power that they were effectively beyond challenge by other board members. They always got what they wanted, and the last thing they wanted was change. Colleagues were often unwilling to challenge, out of respect for the age of their chairs. But if they did try to push through decisions which went against their leader’s wishes they could find that decisions were simply disregarded or action was blocked. There was also a risk that challenging the chair’s entrenched positions would be interpreted as a personal slight, resulting in ill-feeling and hostility. So it was best to say and do nothing. Both organisations lost their momentum and became moribund, and in both cases the situation was only resolved after several years when their immovable chairs died in office. The projects did survive to fight another day, but without having made progress in many years.

3.11 When recruitment fails: Even the most energetic groups can experience major difficulties in recruiting members to join their boards. Board and management committees reduce in size and the average age of the members increases inexorably until the chair finally decides to retire and there is no one to take his or her place. The former chair of one now extinct North Wales group said that people had pleaded with him to stay in post, but his declining health made this impractical, and the fact that no one else could be persuaded to take responsibility acted as a serious disincentive. The only salvation would have been a more vigorous board which was prepared to promote the organisation and attract new


members long before the problem came to a head. (One major drawback in these circumstances is that older board members may only attract newcomers of a similar age, so their efforts are doomed to failure.)

3.12 Staging a coup or a walk out: Two South Wales community groups surveyed by CPC (a community centre and a playgroup) were confronted with dictatorial and divisive long-serving chairs, but found ways to resist. The long-suffering members of the community centre committee finally decided that they needed to take action to safeguard their organisation from internal disputes and inertia. Although they did not relish a fight and were unsure whether they had the skills they needed, the rebels decided they had little to lose. So they voted in a new chair who proved a great success and helped to put the organisation back on course. In a nearby playgroup, the behaviour of a “difficult” chair reportedly drove away all but a handful of committee members, who realised that the organisation might no longer be viable. Their solution was to abandon the organisation and take their business with them. They join forces with another playgroup in the area to make sure the services for their children continued. These examples underline the fact that stagnation or closure are not the only options when leaders continue beyond their sell-by dates.


4: The awareness gap

4.1 Aim: Being aware of the possibility of leadership succession problems can be the greatest defence against becoming a victim. This section explains the importance of senior personnel recognising leadership issues, and understanding the way they can affect the health of their cherished projects.

The research findings

4.2 Objectives: The fact that sustainable leadership and succession issues have a low profile in the voluntary sector is beyond dispute. But the research set out to show: how this can adversely affect community organisations and charities how efforts to understand the reasons for this low profile are an important

first step to getting wider recognition for the issues.

4.3 Leadership is a neglected topic: Some management and governance issues have been given a much higher profile in recent years, driven partly by the Charity Commission’s drive to improve the governance and accountability of registered charities. Matters such as board responsibilities, financial reporting, recruitment and employment practices, reserves policies, and conflicts of interest all demand the attention of board members and senior staff. Increasingly, new concerns such as organisational sustainability and environmental policies are also pressing for attention. Achieving good practice in these areas may still elude many organisations but, at least, most of the people who should be taking them seriously have probably heard about them by now. In contrast, discussion of the role of the leaders who take direct responsibility for all these issues is strangely muted. Open debate rarely takes place about their wellbeing, their impact on their organisations, and the continuity of their work if they left.

4.4 Failure to address succession issues can be dangerous: Organisations with vulnerable leaders or leadership arrangements which are vulnerable to sudden change naturally also tend to be less secure. See the case studies in Section 3.

4.5 Training and development have a very low profile: It goes without saying that the very low profile of sustainable leadership and succession issues means that many people who run community organisations and charities are not only unaware of good practice. They are also unaware that they face any risk. So planning, training and development to reduce vulnerability is rare.

4.6 Awareness is important: More surprising, is the difference it can make just to be aware of leadership issues.


The awareness itself can be enough to change the way people think about their leaders.

Some of the recommended steps included in the “Guidance Notes for Managers and Board Members” (see the Sustainable Leadership Toolkit at the end of this Report) involve relatively simple adjustments to the way existing planning training and management is organised.

Recognising that community and charitable initiatives may be highly vulnerable to a change in leadership (or lack of change) does not necessarily imply that there should be immediately major adjustments to policy and structure – although these may be advisable at some point.

4.7 Making board members and senior staff aware is fairly straightforward: In most circumstance, creating awareness of leadership issues in a community group or charity can start simply with a structured open discussion. This may involve less effort than the practical and policy changes associated with other improvements in voluntary sector governance and management.

4.8 “Sustainable leadership” is one aspect of creating sustainable organisations: An organisation which aspires to achieve greater “sustainability” should address leadership issues as an integral part of the challenge. This should happen at the same time as it considers sustainable funding, income generation and maintaining it services.

4.9 The low profile has a variety of causes: It seems possible that the discussion of leadership issues has such a poor profile in the sector because a number of factors are simultaneously contributing to low levels of awareness. Understanding what these are can help to show how much is being missed by otherwise sophisticated and alert organisations, and how difficult it can be for groups of all sizes to deal with problems if they arise.

Why does sustainable leadership have such a low profile?

4.10 Differences from other sectors: Voluntary organisations have a distinctive set of succession issues to deal with which are not shared by the private or public sectors – so there is little directly relevant experience to share. Elsewhere there are: commonly more paid and professional personnel at board level relatively few public sector organisations which are comparable in size and

resources to the large numbers of very small and poorly resourced voluntary groups

fewer incentives for small organisations to opportunistically take on such a wide range of different activities (which inevitably lead to overstretched management in many voluntary organisations)

overriding shareholder or personal financial motives in the private sector inheritance issues driving the protection of family businesses.


4.11 Lack of a lead from support agencies: Very few support agencies provide any kind of awareness raising, information, guidance or training on the subject. CPC’s research suggests that the simple reason for this is that they, like the groups they support, are often unaware of the importance of succession issues in the health of voluntary organisations. Few agencies responded to the research questionnaire, and fewer acknowledged that they were already concerned. But the lack of agency involvement may also be a result of limited resources and the need to prioritise their services elsewhere.

4.12 Charity Commission guidance: The Charity Commission has not so far given prominence directly to sustainable leadership in its guidance for charities. It draws attention to a variety of other governance priorities, which do not directly involve leadership succession, and it does not accept the usefulness of recognising Founders’ Syndrome. So it is easy for charities which want to follow good practice to overlook the issue.

4.13 Late awareness: Most voluntary organisations become aware of succession issues, if at all, only when they begin to present themselves as challenges.

4.14 Recognising causes: If a crisis develops, community groups may identify isolated aspects of their problems (such as the need for better staff training, written procedures, or the appointment of a deputy), rather than a fundamental failure to develop a sustainable leadership policy and take a range of precautions in advance. Although this seems to be reasonable, it does not preclude organisations from being hit a second time by leadership problems with a different set of causes. Equally, if the victims themselves are unaware they will not be able to share the benefits of succession planning with other groups.

4.15 Lack of awareness of the risks: The research showed that many organisations do not believe they are exposed to any danger from leadership succession problems, even if they are aware of the possibility – although their questionnaire responses suggest that their risks may be higher than average (see Section 5 on Risk Indicators)

4.16 The need for consensus: Action on succession planning cannot be taken alone by a manager in the same way that other important issues can be dealt with unobtrusively. It must involve others. CPC found that it is fairly common for isolated individuals (often the chief executive officers themselves) to be aware of possible succession problems. But, since they do not share their concerns with colleagues, no action is taken. Sustainable leadership is, almost by definition, a matter which can only be recognised by a consensus and can only be tackled by collective action.

4.17 Priorities: Even where a risk is recognised, it is probably seen as less serious than the current


fundraising challenge, and even if succession planning is seen as desirable, there may simply be no time to address it.

4.18 Scepticism: Some people who responded to CPC’s questionnaire seemed to have looked at their own organisations and concluded that, because they personally faced no risk, any wider concern about leadership succession was unnecessary. It was even suggested by one that it was another scare to promote the community development “industry”.

4.19 No one left to tell the story: The worst consequence of failing to deal with the leadership succession is closure – which means that there is often no record of what has happened and no one left to pass on warnings to others.

4.20 The “succession taboo” is a set of perceptions which dangerously stop succession issues from being discussed at all.

“Succession taboo”

4.21 Wilful silence: One of the most curious and, perhaps, disturbing aspects of sustainable leadership in the voluntary sector is the unwillingness of some people to discuss it openly. This is evidently one reason why there is so little awareness of the subject. It is also a barrier in some organisations to taking realistic steps to prepare for a future change in leadership.

4.22 The taboo at work: Several reasons are given for not talking about succession issues: The loss of a valued founder with all the consequences for those remaining

can be literally unthinkable – too distressing or alarming in its implications for fellow workers to contemplate.

Discussing the chief executive’s or chair’s departure could be considered undermining or disloyal.

Even oblique and depersonalised discussions about leadership can be impossible for colleagues when they are confronting a chair who has grown old and too set in their ways. Personal sensitivities mean they may be unwilling to say anything which could possibly convey the message: “we think you are too old for the job”.

Raising the succession issue is seen as running the risk of hastening the resignation which is so feared.

Chief executives are extremely reluctant to discuss succession issues if they are already isolated from other staff and trustees – whether by virtue of their workload, status, or management style or their colleagues’ own weaknesses. They reason that this would isolate them even further or expose them as weak to those who look up to them.


4.23 The taboo in smaller organisations: The loss of a manager when funding ends creates the unthinkable possibility

that all management jobs will revert to volunteer trustees. The leader may be responsible for so many different aspects of the

organisation’s activities that it seems simply impossible to replace them.

4.24 Denial: Several survey respondents insisted that succession issues were unimportant to them, although an analysis of risk indicators in the questionnaire suggested that their organisations might be vulnerable. Some interviews also revealed contradictory views among different senior personnel in the same organisation. It is not easy to explain why this barrier should exist in an anonymous survey, but it is clear that the discussion of leadership can produce strong emotional reactions. So the denials may not have been the result of deliberate deception.

4.25 The implications for raising leadership issues. The Guidance Notes emphasise the need to raise awareness of sustainable leadership within voluntary organisations which might otherwise face succession problems when their leaders change. But the “succession taboo” is a serious challenge to this approach because it argues that some organisations do not want to be drawn into discussing these potentially painful topics. CPC’s mentoring work with one group where there was initial reluctance to explore the issue did prove successful in opening up a wider debate. However, it may be wise not to press the point with such groups to avoid the risk of negative or damaging reactions. Further practical research seems necessary to establish whether and how this barrier can be safely overcome, so that some of the most vulnerable organisations can be supported.


5: Vulnerability and risk

5.1 Aim: This section examines the importance of organisations becoming aware of vulnerability and risk as a first step towards of developing sustainable leadership policies and strategies.

A real issue and real risks

5.2 A balanced view: Organisations involved in the consultations warned against creating a sense of panic over leadership issues. Clearly there is no imminent danger of collapse among large numbers of groups and projects which have so far failed to consider their leadership succession. But at the same time, the voluntary sector is growing progressively more complex, and that complexity (particularly but certainly not exclusively in social enterprises and multifunctional community regeneration initiatives) is reaching into smaller community-based organisations which do not have the resources and financial reserves of larger regional and national bodies. And there is clear evidence that some of them are already suffering.

5.3 The beginnings of recognition: The silence of most support agencies on sustainable leadership questions could throw CPC’s conclusions into question if it was not for the categorical endorsement of its findings by some local organisations and by the Development Trusts Association Wales. The DTA also confirms many of the problems, including: loss of momentum when knowledgeable managers and chief executives

leave without properly preparing fellow staff the risk of weak internal systems and flimsy policies which easily break

down if they are not designed with succession in mind poor re-recruitment after a skilful manager has gone lack of ambition and dynamism when chairs and manager’s outlast their

sell-by dates the undermining of effective board level governance and project direction

when powerful managers begin to feel and act as if they are invulnerable – which can result in damage to the finances and reputations even of substantial organisations.

5.4 Identifying at-risk organisations: CPC recognised at an early stage in the research that drawing attention to a generally ignored topic requires a way to focus on community organisations and charities which genuinely need to take stock of their leadership planning. The argument cannot be won by suggesting that everyone is at risk, since in practical terms that is plainly untrue. The solution was to use a list of potential indicators which are individually insignificant but cumulatively reveal organisations which may be vulnerable to succession problems.


The risk indicators

5.5 Testing the indicators: The common-sense list of risk indicators (see below) was initially tested in the survey stage of CPC’s research. This provided both: confirmation that organisations which reported having leadership succession

problems were also likely to report large numbers of positive indicators a useful analysis tool to identify other organisations which were potentially

vulnerable to problems although they did not apparently recognise they were at risk.

Developing a diagnostic tool: The list of indicators was refined following the survey. The possible use of the list by groups as a self-diagnosis tool for identifying

relative levels of vulnerability was then discussed at the consultation seminars. The new tool was warmly welcomed as providing the first objective means they were aware of for community organisations and charities to reflect on sustainable leadership issues.

There was acceptance that the initial list may be developed further in the light of experience by tweaking the indicators and perhaps suggesting levels of low, medium and high risk. But the consultations concluded that there was no reason why it should not be brought into use immediately.

It was given a first practical test in the pilot mentoring sessions (see Section 7), where it was particularly useful in highlighting differences between colleagues in their perception of leadership issues.

CPC will be pleased to receive suggestions for further refinement of the checklist.

5.6 The current checklist: The checklist form used in the pilot mentoring sessions is included in the Sustainable Leadership Toolkit. It comprises the following indicators:

There is little awareness here of the need to plan for a change in leadership.

The organisation is not in a position to make advance plans for a change in leadership.

The chief officer or chair has been in office continuously for 5 years or more.

It would be difficult to replace the leader’s skills if they left. Colleagues regard the leader as “indispensable”. The organisation would face setbacks if the leader leaves. The organisation relies on the leader to guide them on most of the

important decisions. Important information about the organisation is generally not shared. It is not easy to discuss with the leader what would happen if they

left. There is risk of taking the leader’s commitment for granted. Steps are not routinely taken to ensure the leader is properly

supported. Steps are not routinely taken to ensure the leader avoids suffering

from excessive overwork and burnout.


The manager’s career development is not discussed at annual appraisals.

Leadership succession issues are not discussed openly in staff appraisals.

Leadership succession issues are not discussed openly in organisational reviews.

The leader’s long involvement in the organisation may or has become a barrier to progress.

Limits are not placed on the period of office for the chair and committee members.

The leader could be better at delegating responsibility to others. The leader could be better at communicating what they do for the

organisation. There is no written “operations manual” to record the organisation’s

key operational procedures. Our policies on equal opportunities could limit our flexibility when we

recruit a new leader. The leader has no designated deputy. The leader has a designated deputy, but they do not have the

knowledge or skills to take over. There are few or no contingency management arrangements in case

the leader is incapacitated by illness or accident. We depend on the leader for their key skills (such as fundraising,

finance, business development or personnel) but there is no training programme to pass on these skills to others.

Making practical use of the indicators

5.7 Limitations: The checklist in its present form has some limitations which users should be aware of: The indicators refer to “leaders” generally, which means paid staff at the

chief executive officer and overall co-ordinator level and, as appropriate, to chairs of committees and boards. This is deliberately unspecific so that users can refer to whichever leader is most important to them or the person they are most aware of.

The checklist can help to provide warning signs, but it cannot give an objective measure of vulnerability.

While identifying a large number of positive indicators suggests “vulnerability”, this does not mean that an organisation is likely to experience succession problems – only that it may experience governance and/or management difficulties if its leadership changes. (CPC’s research showed that it is extremely difficult in practice to predict which vulnerable organisations will actually run into difficulties and which will not.)

5.8 Practical uses for the Checklist: The Checklist provided in the Toolkit is designed to be used by support workers working with groups and in-house by senior personnel at staff and board level. Its intended uses are: to open up a debate between colleagues about succession planning in their

organisation, particularly if the issue is rarely, if ever, discussed


to compare the different perceptions of colleagues at the start of a process to reach a common view of their organisation’s need for succession planning the very different levels of awareness of leadership issues within

organisations appears to be one of the reasons why people do not feel comfortable about discussing sustainable leadership

discussion of the checklist can help to expose differences of opinion over crucial leadership issues – such as whether the chief officer is good at delegating, or whether the chair involves fellow board members adequately in policy decisions.

to highlight possible vulnerability when colleagues have shared their views and agreed how many of the indicators apply to their organisation.

5.9 A possible “traffic light” warning system: It has been suggested that the checklist could be embellished to deliver a simple “traffic light” warning system for groups. For example: 0 to 8 positive answers out of 25 might receive a green “no problems” signal, 9 to 16 positives an amber “warning” signal and 17 to 25 positives a red “danger signal”. CPC is wary of incorporating this refinement before the checklist has been tested more widely. The suggestion might obstruct rather than stimulate discussion among colleagues. It may not accommodate the situation, for instance, where people identify a low level of risk because they are unaware of some dangers, rather than because the dangers do not exist.


6: Good practice

6.1 Aim: This section identifies some of the main suggestions which emerged from CPC’s survey and consultations to minimise the disruptive effects of losing (or not replacing) a long-serving leader.

Exploring the options

6.2 Key actions: This account of good practice focuses on a few key actions which are likely to have the greatest impact. It is far from an exhaustive list of suggestions. The organisations which have started to give consideration to sustainable leadership are often extremely inventive and resourceful, and contributed a wide range of suggestions. Many of these are included in the Guidance Notes in the attached Sustainable Leadership Toolkit.

6.3 Horses for courses: The research suggests that action which can help in one situation can occasionally have negative affects in another. So it would be unwise to recommend every available idea for promoting sustainable leadership. This also highlights the importance for groups of devising strategies which feel right for them – although it is also good practice to talk to outsiders to check whether a proposed course of action might have disadvantages. There are no definitive answers and we should not expect them on an issue which has been explored so little up to now.

6.4 The value of early precautions: CPC’s survey supports the common sense view that taking sustainable leadership precautions at an early stage (well before there is any succession to deal with) is more effective than last minute provisions which are rushed in when it is known that the leader is about to leave. But urgent action can also be effective if it is well-thought out and the result of a collective effort by managers and board members.

Safety measures

6.5 Appointing a deputy: One of the obvious steps for an organisation to take is to appoint an effective deputy chief executive or deputy chair who can take over either temporarily or permanently if the key leadership post becomes vacant. Redesignating senior staff responsibilities usually means that it is not

necessary to create expensive new posts, as some directors fear. The deputy’s post needs to be real and not honorary – ie the post holder

should be capable and willing to take responsibility if necessary and should be consciously trained to be able to do so, at least for short periods of time while a new leader is appointed. (There is evidence that designating a deputy chief executive officer on the basis of seniority rather than


management capacity can have damaging effects. This can easily prevent a more able internal candidate from being trained to take over as the chief executive, and lead to poor or messy succession arrangements.)

6.6 Ensuring continuity: Organisations which know in advance that their chief executive officer is going to leave may have time to plan ahead for the continuity of the particular features which they most value. Two organisations which took part in the consultations demonstrate thus well. The Arts Factory in Ferndale, Rhondda Cynon Taff, one of Wales’ most

successful development trusts. When they learned that their manager was leaving it was agreed that the vision and ethos of the company had to be secured. Part of their succession planning involved reconfirming their objectives, and changing their equal opportunities policy to make it fully acceptable to train up and appoint an existing employee to take over as chief executive officer. When the founder/manager came to leave for fresh challenges after more than 10 years in post he was succeeded by his deputy, and he joined the board as a director to help the transition. (This has worked well for the Arts Factory, but another organisation has pointed to the risks of a paid manager making the transition directly to volunteer director. If they have any difficulty letting go they can, despite their best intentions, make life difficult for fellow board members and unwittingly undermine their successor.)

Jobforce Wales, a large training organisation in South West Wales, has developed an entirely different strategy to achieve continuity for the knowledge and skills in the company. The chief officer instituted a long-term programme to upgrade all staff skills, by requiring each employee to learn the job of the person they are directly answerable to. The logic of this bold approach was that it should automatically produce workers who would be equipped to take over the senior management positions when he came to retire in two years time. One impressive benefit of this approach is that it necessarily develops a more open, well-informed and collaborative staff.

6.7 Written procedures and operations manuals: It is widely recognised that voluntary bodies of all sizes can experience expensive and damaging problems if they fail to adopt and follow written procedures. The Successful Succession study has given this view even stronger focus. Several groups which have survived succession problems now make the point that founder members and strong long-serving leaders may carry their organisation’s procedures in their heads and never attempt to write them down – and in the worst cases they may do so deliberately to underline their power. When they leave, they can render their organisations helpless until systems and procedures have been rebuilt. Producing written “operations manuals” must be a part of all sustainable leadership strategies.

6.8 Good practice in governance and management: Some organisations identify good board and management practices generally as the safest means of guarding against leadership succession problems. Much of this approach will be entirely familiar to those who have worked to ensure that they achieve high standards of board-level


governance. The main difference is the extra emphasis which this places on both good communications and the welfare of the chief executive officer. Key aspects of this approach are: development training for board members (together as a group, rather than

sending people individually on external training courses) to create strong, knowledgeable boards united by good teamwork

searching out board members with the right knowledge and qualities to build skilled and diverse boards and well-led resilient organisations

induction packs for new directors and staff to share knowledge about the organisation and about what individuals are expected to do

developing strong internal communications encouraging even the most single-minded and independent of managers and

chairs to regard delegation as an essential aspect of their jobs ensuring that chief officers receive the same attention in staff supervision

and appraisal arrangements as other key employees (an obvious, but sometimes overlooked provision, according to the study).

6.9 Attention to management detail: The chief officer in a leading Welsh community development organisation who has management experience of dealing with leadership succession issues elsewhere provides guidance based on her experience. Her suggestions draw attention to the small details of basic good management (which should be in place anyway, irrespective of the succession issue) in safeguarding a group’s leadership arrangements, including:

spread knowledge and expertise as widely as possible ensure all managers are competent build in a wide range of skills eg finance, personnel, marketing,

fundraising maintain funding arrangements as far as possible so that replacement

management staff can be appointed if necessary plan ahead for a replacement or deputy chair – don’t leave it to

chance. have clear job descriptions and person specifications for both paid and

volunteer jobs insist on at least 2 months notice for a senior manager.

6.10 Sustainability planning: Some organisations have recognised that the new emphasis from funders on sustainability in the voluntary sector is not restricted to social enterprise activities and income generation. It rightly includes sustainable management arrangements, which in turn necessarily involves taking leadership succession issues seriously. Once the point is recognised, more sophisticated organisations need have

few difficulties integrating this with normal internal procedures, including: organisational reviews and development planning improved management training staff supervision and appraisals trustee recruitment and trustee training internal evaluation arrangements and social accounting.


There would also appear to be real value in developing succession planning to fit with work which many organisations are now required to do in order to demonstrate their long-term sustainability to funders and other stakeholders. Put crudely, this could mean brownie points in the intense competition for grant funding.

6.11 Getting rid of dead wood. Despite the reluctance of most board members to engage in conflict, especially when there is a risk of losing the fight, it is both justifiable and possible to get rid of a poor leader who is reluctant to give up power. It takes determination and a united front from the rest of the members, and a formal resolution within the terms of the constitution to appoint a new chair. It is, of course, preferable to change leaders in a less brutal way. Using the Checklist of risks and the Guidance Notes to stimulate a debate about leadership may help to persuade an elderly or long-serving chair that it is time to give someone else a chance. If this fails to dislodge them, members will need to weigh up whether it is better to maintain a sterile standoff and accept inexorable decline, or to precipitate change in a possibly bloody coup (which might alienate the users or beneficiaries). Neither is ideal. But the paramount duty of board members is to safeguard the long-term interests of their organisations – one way or another.

6.12 Everyone pulling together: The experience of some survey respondents bears out the message “don’t panic – all is not lost”. Some organisations in the survey escaped serious harm through a mixture of

good luck and astute emergency planning. In other cases the trauma of being about to lose an irreplaceable leader

unexpectedly brought the rest of the personnel closer together. This rallying effect can be a direct result of staff and board members

suddenly being released from a controlling or protective leader. Some leaders probably overstate the problems which they face – eg with

complaints that there is a weak board which could not survive on its own – because they want to feel needed or fear losing control. So the risk of problems can occasionally be smaller than expected.

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to be sure that a group will rally when its leader leaves. This is certainly not inevitable, and all-volunteer groups without a chair can very quickly give up hope and close down.


7: Raising awareness and delivering support

7.1 Aim: This section looks at the options for getting outside support to help community organisations and charities to deal effectively with the challenges of their leadership succession, and more generally with the urgent need to raise the profile of sustainable leadership issues in the voluntary sector.

Meeting support needs

7.2 Awareness and support: CPC’s research explored the close interrelationship between: the need for voluntary sector organisations to give greater attention to

sustainable leadership issues the development of material and resources to help them to do so the need to raise awareness of sustainable leadership across the voluntary

sector identifying which support agencies are best placed to provide the materials

and, where necessary, deliver assistance the need to raise awareness more widely among these bodies.

7.3 The starting point: CPC is a small charity with extremely limited resources compared with the scale of the awareness-raising task. But the consultation responses suggest that other grass roots organisations will be prepared to help with the task in ways which could have a significant cumulative effect.

7.4 The general objectives: From the present low level of awareness and with such limited capacity to have an effect, it is unrealistic to plan a general programme for the voluntary sector. The first targets must be to: provide simple tools and resources which can be easily and widely used by

support workers and by voluntary organisations themselves raise awareness among support organisations which are best suited to help begin the job of creating awareness among those organisations which are

most likely to experience problems if sustainable leadership is neglected – including the more complex and innovative organisations involved in community regeneration and social enterprise

recommend that a more coherent voluntary sector response is developed by appropriate agencies in due course.

7.5 The long term goal is to make the role and importance of leadership properly understood throughout the voluntary sector. This will amount to a significant culture change which cannot take place overnight.

7.6 Leadership in voluntary sector and cross-sector partnerships: Participants at the consultation


seminars pointed out that CPC’s research did not explore the related challenge of developing effective leadership in partnership organisations. Partnership development generally is another under-supported field, so there is a case for saying that suitable guidance for both establishing and sustaining partnerships should be brought together.

Developing resources and materials

7.7 The preferred approach CPC’s consultations demonstrated ready agreement among voluntary and community organisations of all sizes that the best way initially to deliver help to large numbers of people is to keep it simple and accessible. More elaborate and expensive resources can perhaps be developed later once recognition of the importance of leadership succession issues is more widely recognised. The aim overall should be to develop a library of proven tools.

7.8 Basic information sheets and guidance notes: The most urgent need is for basic information to raise awareness and provide a simple approach both to tackling immediate problems and to planning systematically for sustainability. This material can be used both by in-house individual organisations and by development workers in support agencies. CPC’s Sustainable Leadership Toolkit provides three sets of pilot materials which make a useful start and can be built on in the light of future experience. These are: the simple Checklist of Risk Indicators the fairly detailed Guidance Notes for Managers and Board Members the Sustainable Leadership Mentoring Procedure.

7.9 One-to-one mentoring with chairs and managers: The mentoring approach being pioneered by CPC (see below) was welcomed. While it is recognised as a potentially powerful tool for encouraging groups to address complex leadership issues, mentoring is labour-intensive. It may be best reserved as a tool for tackling the most challenging situations which the DIY “Guidance Notes” approach cannot readily resolve.

7.10 Web-based information: Most organisations consulted are in favour of incorporating basic

information on leadership issues on the websites of existing organisations. Several have already offered to provide information on their websites about the CPC research and possibly downloadable versions of the Guidance Notes and Checklist. If this can be replicated more widely it would provide a valuable low-cost resource for the voluntary sector which can be built on as other guidance material becomes available.

The possible creation of a dedicated Sustainable Leadership Website was rejected during consultations as expensive and unnecessary.


7.11 Training packages: There was some enthusiasm for developing a dedicated training package on sustainable leadership issues in due course. The options include: training resources for social enterprise trainers to use as part of their income

generation activities; grant funding will be needed for this approach to enable the training to reach small to medium sized organisations which cannot afford to pay for it themselves

a simple general purpose course available to support organisations for their staff to deliver freely as required.

7.12 A printed “Sustainable Leadership Handbook”: There was little support at this stage for any more substantial printed material on the subject. It was considered that this would have limited circulation, and would not be read by those who most need the information.

7.13 Integrated governance training: The research shows that one important goal needs to be to integrate sustainable leadership training with the now commonplace training and guidance for trustees and board members on their governance responsibilities. Achieving this is much more about raising awareness than providing extra resources.

Sources of support

7.14 The options: CPC’s consultations explored who might be able and willing to deliver advice, mentoring or training on sustainable leadership and leadership succession issues. It was recognised that relatively few organisations and individuals are equipped to do so at present. But there is also optimism that a number of support and development organisations might be quickly able to acquire the capacity for this if they can be persuaded of its value. The following preferences were identified.

7.15 Councils for Voluntary Service: The 20 county-based CVSs in Wales (and their counterparts in other parts of the UK) are the most appropriate bodies for providing basic advice and support to thousands of smaller community groups on sustainable leadership. However, since, they are mostly under-resourced for their present work, they may not easily be able to take on additional responsibilities. There is a much greater potential for CVS staff to become conduits for information and written materials such as Sustainable Leadership Tolkit and to provide very basic advice as part of their normal support services.

7.16 Wales Council for Voluntary Action: WCVA does not usually provide support directly to groups. But it has a powerful machinery for disseminating information, which can be extremely useful, including: a regular magazine a library of information sheets a web site


a telephone advice line training courses occasional publications.

7.17 Development Trusts Association Wales: DTA Wales provides a simple health check for members which might be adapted to focus more directly on sustainable leadership. Although the DTA has limited resources, it is: already aware of succession problems among some members in direct contact with a growing number of the projects whose innovation,

dynamism and rapid growth mean that they fall into the “vulnerable” category.

7.18 Other umbrella bodies: These need to be contacted with information about the CPC project.

7.19 Social enterprise training opportunities: It was recognised during the consultations that social enterprise organisations which provide training may be well-placed to develop, market and deliver sustainable leadership courses to the voluntary sector.

Raising awareness

7.20 Refining the options: The following options for awareness raising emerged from the consultations. A preliminary evaluation shows that they have varying merits.

7.21 Running workshops at voluntary sector conferences: This is seen as a powerful way to reach a wide range of engaged individuals which is not heavily demanding on resources. Basic information sheets can be distributed to raise awareness beyond those who attend the workshop. Attendance at other voluntary sector policy events has been suggested. CPC will float the idea to conference organisers.

7.22 Aiming publicity and literature at support agencies: CPC will start the ball rolling by sending current research and guidance materials to a range of support organisations.

7.23 Producing and distributing information/resource packs: This is an attractive idea for engaging the interest of voluntary organisations and support agencies alike. But it has major funding implications. It is suggested that the impact of the present CPC materials is monitored to establish whether more polished information and resources (which are refined as a result of practical experience) might be effective.

7.24 Engaging with funders and other stakeholders:


Funders: Support is likely to remain limited without financial resources to develop training materials and train development staff to provide dedicated guidance and advice. It is essential in the longer term to raise the awareness of funders that this is a valid cause and that staff and board members need to access training. Developing sustainable leadership strategies will help to protect the investment which funders make in voluntary organisations. Initially contact will be made with the Wales Funders Forum.

Government: Efforts will be made to draw attention to the issue with the Welsh Assembly Government who funded CPC’s original research.

Communities Next: Although many Communities First partnerships have not been in existence long enough to have worries about succession issues, sustainable leadership will inevitably become an increasingly significant matter as the Assembly’s flagship community regeneration programme Communities First matures into Communities Next.

Local authorities: It is important that local authorities understand the particular needs and vulnerabilities of established organisations, although reaching appropriate officers with persuasive information may be problematic.

The Charity Commission: CPC will communicate the research findings to the Charity Commission.

7.25 Awareness-raising seminars: County-by-county seminars: The suggestion that awareness-raising

seminars could be held throughout Wales to reach local organisations was dismissed as expensive and unreliable. (Although CPC’s consultation seminar in Wrexham was well attended, the South Wales seminar was not, despite a healthy number of bookings.)

Seminars for workers in support agencies: This approach has similar weaknesses. But seminars may have more as a form of “familiarisation training” at a later stage when sustainable leadership issues are more widely recognised.

7.26 A “Successful Succession” web site: This idea was quickly rejected. It will be far more effective to piggy-back information on existing sites in the sector which are used for disseminating information, and to make links between web sites (eg to direct people to sites where experience of succession problems and/or good practice are documented).

7.27 An awareness-raising project: The possibility of running a follow-up project dedicated to many of the above approaches has been suggested, although it is not clear how it could be funded.

The mentoring pilot

7.28 Mentoring and CPC’s research: In addition to compiling initial guidance material, CPC carried out two pilot mentoring courses to explore what steps might be needed to deliver


objective one-to-one outside guidance to medium-size organisations. The experiment was successful enough to give confidence that a similar approach can be used more widely. The procedure for carrying out effective mentoring is included in the Sustainable Leadership Toolkit.

7.29 Outline of the approach: CPC offered to carry out a mentoring experiment on sustainable leadership

issues with personnel in two organisations which had contributed positively to the Successful Succession research. Neither of them was facing any serious immediate problems with their leadership succession, although there were some signs of vulnerability in their questionnaire responses.

The format for the first session involved individual interviews with the Chair and key staff.

This was followed by a report outlining findings and making suggestions for action by the organisation.

In one case a second session was arranged which involved a group discussion of the findings with those who had been interviewed initially.

Personnel were encouraged to feed back their impressions of the process using a form provided by CPC.

7.30 Findings: It is not necessary for an organisation to be experiencing succession

problems for mentoring to be useful. Mentoring can have significant potential for starting the process of breaking

down “succession taboo” (see Section 4) and bring issues into the open. But it is clear that sensitivity is needed to avoid unnerving key players (and

risking the possibility that they will react adversely by blocking further discussion). It may be unavoidable that the process feels intrusive for some of those taking part.

Since the process involves sharing information, particular care is necessary with confidentiality and to avoid encroaching on the chief officer’s authority to manage. Leadership is an integral part of management, and organisations which agree to explore leadership issues may not welcome a detailed unpicking of their general management arrangements.

For these reasons the mentor needs to be clear about the context and purpose of discussions, and give the participants control over issues such as: the way confidentiality is handled drawing discussion boundaries how the mentor will feed back findings and recommendations.

The mentor’s existing knowledge of the organisations, as in the case of CPC’s two mentoring trials, is clearly a major advantage. CPC aimed to complete the work with no more than two meetings with the participants. But it may be useful to build in an additional exploratory meeting (ideally with the chief officer and chair) at the start of the process to help set the scene and flag up topics which are likely to feature in the subsequent interviews and discussions.

7.31 Outcomes: In both cases the staff and volunteers interviewed agreed to share views and


information which they had previously been unwilling or unable to discuss openly. The organisations were provided with a number of recommendations for further consideration and action. These were considered helpful. It is too early to say whether they will be acted on or what the impact will be, but feedback forms indicate that participants believe the experience will make their organisations either “much stronger” or “a little stronger”.

7.32 Conclusions: One-to-one mentoring on sustainable leadership has a definite role to play in drawing out issues which senior staff and board members do not normally share with one another. This is an essential component of starting to develop robust leadership policies.


Appendix 1: Research methodology and outcomes

14 Overview of the study: Survey work: The first stage of the study concentrated on gathering information on perceptions and the status of leadership succession issues in the voluntary sector. It used the following approaches: a search for existing data, research reports and training materials a questionnaire-based survey, and a qualitative analysis of responses telephone and face-to face interviews Consultations and pilot support: The second stage of the study involved consulting on the findings of the first stage leading to work to: compile an outline for guidance materials to be produced by CPC undertake pilot mentoring work investigate options for disseminating the research findings.

15 The questionnaire form: An early choice was made not to attempt a quantitative survey of the voluntary sector or any distinct part of it. The purpose of the research was to explore attitudes to an issue which self evidently has a low profile. A survey was unlikely to elicit a representative response from organisations which were either unaware of succession problems or have no interest in them. The questionnaire was therefore designed to reveal current perceptions and, where possible, both direct and indirect evidence of awareness and vulnerability. To focus on organisations which were most likely to make a useful contribution, the survey invited responses particularly from well established projects.

16 Question design: At the core of this approach is question 3 which offers a tick-box matrix of potential indicators referring to the attitudes, views and actions of key personnel, including the chief executive/manager, the chair and founder members. Other questions requiring written answers asked direct questions about succession planning and problems. The survey additionally asked for information to place responses in the context of the size, age, personnel and constitutional status of the organisation.

17 Questionnaire responses: The choice of an email-based survey based on lists provided by Wales Council for Voluntary Action, and Development Trusts Association Wales, and Community Projects Centre’s own contacts proved disappointing. 400 questionnaires were initially sent, but produced only 5% usable returns. A second email shot also had poor results. A follow-up postal mailing with telephone reminders to 100 organisations, including many not previously targeted, brought a further 20 returns (a 20% response rate), bringing the total to 47 completed questionnaires. Although the protracted questionnaire process ate into time allocated for interviews, it produced some rich material.

18 Interviews: Selected questionnaire respondents and other practitioners known to CPC provided subjects for face to face and telephone interviews with senior personnel in 16 organisations (either single individuals or a combination of staff and trustees). The interviews provided:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________“Successful Succession” – Appendix 1 Research methodology and outcomes 34

case study material examples of good practice more detail on organisational vulnerabilities cross-referencing of the attitudes of managers and chief executives with their deputies and chairs when supplementary private interviews were carried out with their colleagues. (These provide confirmation of the superficial state of general awareness and some strongly contrasting perspectives in organisations which have on some level acknowledged that they should pay attention to the leadership succession.)

19 Questionnaire analysis: Questionnaire and interview responses were analysed in search of common themes, correspondences with data on organisational type and age etc, the perceptions of officers, and examples of good practice. In particular:

the extensive range of answers in the Question 3 tick-box matrix which lends itself to simple statistical examination (see the questionnaire form in Appendix 3) a subjective review of responses was carried out to identify indicators of: organisations which may be vulnerable (for instance, a series of

negative answers to questions about action taken to secure their smooth running, sharing or retaining skills if leaders leave)

awareness that the leadership succession poses risks (for instance, strongly negative answers on whether safeguards have been taken, or responses which show positive steps are under way).

(This indirect approach is essential in an area of management where senior personnel may be defensive or may not have given any previous thought to the matter. The interview stage added weight to the review and confirmed the validity of examining vulnerabilities and awareness in this way.)

20 The organisations in the survey: The average age of organisations in the survey is 19 years, the youngest is

three years old and the oldest are 80 and 85. Questionnaire data was provided on over 120 personnel: 31 managers/chief executives 35 chairs 25 founder members 17 full time volunteers 17 other personnel with key skills

37 of the 47 organisations are identified by name on the questionnaires (though not all of these are prepared to be identified in the published research)

Financial turnover for organisations in the survey range from £1.4m to £300.

38 organisations declared a figure for earned income worth a total of £7.9m, and 16 are owners of building assets ranging from £80,000 to £9m and averaging £463,000.

26 respondents are registered charities (which have particular responsibilities for protecting their assets).


21 Good and bad practice: Questionnaire responses and interviews provided a variety of examples of: organisations which had experienced difficulties largely as a result of not

managing leadership succession processes satisfactorily (including examples where the outcome appears in the circumstances to have been unavoidable)

positive approaches already in use by the respondents to minimise problems, and some valuable constructive suggestions in the questionnaires and interviews which were stimulated by the study process itself. The good practice is documented in Section 6 of the Report.

22 Consultations: An Interim Report was produced in December 2007 and a summary of this was circulated to questionnaire respondents and other practitioners and support bodies. Two seminars were held in February 2008 in south Wales (at Gilfach Goch Community Association, Gilfach Goch, Rhondda Cynon Taff and at the Dee Valley Community Partnership, Cefn Mawr, Wrexham). 90 invitations were sent and 17 people in total attended. CPC presented the findings identified by the Interim Report and discussed the issues arising with participants. The results of these consultations have been used to update the findings of the Interim Report.

23 Materials and dissemination: Interview data and the consultation seminars produced ideas on the ways to raise and disseminate information about sustainable leadership in the voluntary sector, and on the type of guidance materials which will be most useful to practitioners and support bodies.

24 Pilot mentoring in sustainable leadership: Two regeneration organisations agreed to take part in a pilot mentoring exercise designed to explore ways in which sustainable leadership issues can be raised and examined in individual organisations. The pilots involved individual face-to-face discussions with key personnel and reporting back conclusions and recommendations.


Appendix 2: Founder’s Syndrome

1 The recognition of “Founder’s Syndrome”: One exception to the paucity of material on succession issues is the recognition, apparently originating in North America, of “founder’s syndrome”. One accessible paper provides a useful description:

Founder’s Syndrome occurs when a single individual or a small group of individuals bring an organization through tough times (a start-up, a growth spurt, a financial collapse, etc.). Often these sorts of situations require a strong passionate personality - someone who can make fast decisions and motivate people to action. Once those rough times are over, however, the decision-making needs of the organization change, requiring mechanisms for shared responsibility and authority. It is when those decision-making mechanisms don’t change, regardless of growth and changes on the program side, that Founder’s Syndrome becomes an issue. (Hildy Gottlieb, Founder’s Syndrome? Who Me? 2005.)

The Syndrome is also identified as one of 6 common causes of failure in US non profit organisations (Stephen R. Block, Why Non-Profits Fail, Jossey Bass Wiley, 2003).

2 The limitations of Founder’s Syndrome: Importantly, although the guidance provided is relevant to organisations addressed by the current study, Founder’s Syndrome refers specifically only to the people who have established organisations and then can’t let go. It does not seem to apply to organisations which have developed a dependency on their leader and won’t contemplate them leaving. It also narrowly focuses attention on those who initiate projects, overlooking the fact that many powerful and influential leaders have arrived later. These shortcomings have probably limited the impact of the useful guidance which accompanies discussion of the Syndrome.

3 Rejection of the Syndrome in the UK: Another reason for Founder’s Syndrome failing to contribute to a wider understanding of Leadership Succession issues is that it has been rejected by the Charity Commission in the UK. An examination carried out by the Commission led to the conclusion that it was unhelpful as a concept for understanding and guiding charitable organisations. This is perhaps due to the Syndrome’s potentially negative and patronizing view of people who have done most to establish their organisations, and the wish not to see them undervalued. The narrow definition and lack of wider relevance may also have influenced the rejection. But the result is that there is apparently no directly relevant guidance for leadership succession endorsed by the Charity Commission.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________“Successful Succession” – Appendix 2 Founder’s Syndrome 37

Appendix 3: The “Successful Succession” Questionnaire

Dear colleague,

Research on the how community groups handle the challenge of an “irreplaceable” leader

The “Successful Succession” Questionnaire is part of important independent research by the charity Community Projects Centre into the challenges of leadership in voluntary and community organisations.

If you have a leader you depend on heavily – a paid manager or volunteer chair or other officer – who has been in post for several years, we want to know what arrangements, if any, you have made to safeguard the future if she or he leaves. Alternatively, what happens if a long-term leader stays around too long? Maybe you have already been through the experience of replacing your “irreplaceable” leader, and have lessons to share with others, or perhaps it’s an issue you have never considered before.

It doesn’t matter who completes the questionnaire or whether your answers refer to your own position in the organisation or other members of your team. But we do need to hear from you to help us understand the issues better – even if the leadership succession is not a problem for your organisation.

Evidence is emerging that the leadership succession is a potentially damaging problem for many voluntary and charitable organisations. We plan to publish the research findings in the form of accessible guidance materials and offer free help to selected organisations. Your questionnaire responses will be treated in confidence unless you specifically agree otherwise. The research is funded by the Welsh Assembly Government under the New Ideas Fund and supported by WAG and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action.

Please return your completed questionnaire as soon as possible in the envelope provided to Mel Witherden, Community Projects Centre. 2 Sunlea Crescent, Pontypool, NP4 8AD. If you would like to know more about the Successful Succession research or would like an email form which you can complete on screen you can call Mel Witherden at CPC on 01495 769000 or email [email protected].

Many thanks for your help.

Mel WitherdenCPC Manager and ResearcherAugust 2007

“Successful Succession” – Appendix 3 The research questionnaire


“SUCCESSFUL SUCCESSION” RESEARCH PROJECT

ABOUT THE LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION IN YOUR ORGANISATION

1. How long ago was your organisation started? (Count from the beginning of any consultation or planning work, rather than when you began to operate formally.)

2. Have any of the people in leading positions in your organisation been working with you for long?

Length of time working with you3 years + 5 years + 7 years + 10 years + 12 years +

Manager/Chief ExecutiveChairpersonFounder memberFull-time volunteerOther individual with key skills

If you have not ticked any boxes in question 2 please go to question 4

3. Please indicate as honestly as possible whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the role of key people in your organisation by entering any of these abbreviations in the appropriate boxes:“M” for a manager or chief executive “F” for founder member“C” for a chairperson “V” for a full time volunteer“O” for another post/volunteer: what role?

Statements about any of the people identified in Question 2

Strongly agree Agree

Don’t agree or disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

We would be able to replace their skills if they left We ensure that important knowledge in the organisation is sharedColleagues don’t normally regard them as indispensableIt is easy to discuss with them what would happen if they leftThere is little risk of taking their commitment for grantedWe take steps to ensure they are properly supportedWe take steps to ensure they won’t suffer from excessive overwork and burnoutThe manager’s career development is discussed at annual appraisalsLeadership succession issues are discussed openly in staff appraisals and/or organisational reviews

“Successful Succession” – Appendix 3 The research questionnaire 1

years

Statements about any of the people identified in Question 2 continued

Strongly agree Agree

Don’t agree or disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

Their long involvement is not a barrier to progressWe put limits on the period of office for the chair and committee membersWe don’t need to rely on them to guide all the important decisionsThey are good at delegating responsibility to othersThey are good at communicating what they do for the organisation The organisation would cope OK if they leftThere are contingency management arrangements in case they are incapacitated by illness or accident.Arrangements are in place for someone else to take their place if they leave for another job

4. Has your organisation taken any positive steps to ensure that leadership succession issues cannot do serious damage to your work? If so, please give brief details.

5. Do you have direct experience, good or bad, of losing and replacing a valued leader in your organisation? If so please give brief details.

6. Do you have experience of dealing with a longstanding leader who had become an obstacle to progress and development? If so, please give brief details.

7. Is your organisation likely to be interested in (free) information or guidance on handling leadership success issues?


8. Would you be willing to be contacted to discuss any leadership succession issues in your organisation which are raised by your answers?

Name of organisation

Contact name

Address

Phone Email:

ABOUT YOUR ORGANISATION

The following information will be useful for understanding the type and scale of organisations responding to the questionnaire. Approximate figures or guesses are fine.

9. Total number of paid employees, full and part time

10. Number of volunteers, including board/committee members

11. Approximate annual expenditure

12. Approximate annual earned income

13. Value of any buildings your organisation owns

14. Is the organisation a registered charity

ABOUT OTHER ORGANISATIONS

15. Do you know of any other organisations which might be interested in receiving this questionnaire or helping with this research (whether or not they are affected by the issues)? If so, please can you provide contact details below or on a separate sheet:

Name of organisation

Contact name

Address:


Yes No

Yes No

If so, please give your contact details:

£

£

£

Yes No

Phone: Email:

ABOUT THE LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION ISSUE GENERALLY

16. Do you have any `other comments or suggestions for dealing with the leadership succession in community and voluntary organisations? Are there any other points which could have been listed in question 3? (Please contact Community Projects Centre if you would like to discuss any of these issues further or learn more about the research.)

Many thanks for your help. Please return completed questionnaires to Mel Witherden, Community Projects Centre. 2 Sunlea Crescent, Pontypool, NP4 8AD in the envelope provided.


8: Appendix 4: The consultation slide show

“Successful Succession” – Appendix 4: The consultation slide show 1

“Successful Succession” – Appendix 4: The consultation slide show 2

9: THE SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP TOOLKIT

CONTENTS:

1: Checklist of Sustainable Leadership Risk Indicators

2: Guidance Notes for Managers and Board Members

3: A Sustainable Leadership Mentoring Plan

4: Mentoring Evaluation Form

The “Successful Succession” Project was funded by the Welsh Assembly Government’sNew Ideas Fund

and developed and researched byCommunity Projects Centre2 Sunlea CrescentPontypoolTorfaenNP4 8ADTel/fax 01495 [email protected]

The Sustainable Leadership Toolkit April 2008

RAISING AWARENESS OF SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP IN COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS


A Checklist of Sustainable Leadership Risk Indicators

Research suggests that organisations which make no preparations for changes in their leadership are more likely to face problems and setbacks. This checklist is designed to alert staff and board members if they need to talk about and prepare for more sustainable leadership arrangements.

Where you agree with a statement below, enter a tick against it in the box on the right. Although individual indicators may be insignificant on their own, the more ticks you end up with, the more at risk your organisation may be. More importantly, this exercise should be carried out at the same time by several board members and senior staff and the results compared. Strongly differing views may also be a sign of vulnerability.There is little awareness here of the need to plan for a change in leadershipThe organisation is not in a position to make advance plans for a change in leadershipThe chief officer or chair has been in office continuously for 5 years or moreIt would be difficult to replace the leader’s skills if they left Colleagues regard the leader as “indispensable”The organisation would face setbacks if the leader leavesThe organisation relies on the leader to guide them on most of the important decisionsImportant information about the organisation is generally not sharedIt is not easy to discuss with the leader what would happen if they leftThere is risk of taking the leader’s commitment for grantedSteps are not routinely taken to ensure the leader is properly supportedSteps are not routinely taken to ensure the leader avoids suffering from excessive overwork and burnoutThe manager’s career development is not discussed at annual appraisalsLeadership succession issues are not discussed openly in staff appraisalsLeadership succession issues are not discussed openly in organisational reviewsThe leader’s long involvement in the organisation may or has become a barrier to progressLimits are not placed on the period of office for the chair and committee membersThe leader could be better at delegating responsibility to othersThe leader could be better at communicating what they do for the organisation There is no written “operations manual” to record the organisation’s key operational proceduresOur policies on equal opportunities could limit our flexibility when we recruit a new leader.The leader has no designated deputyThe leader has a designated deputy, but they do not have the knowledge or skills to take overThere are few or no contingency management arrangements in case the leader is incapacitated by illness or accidentWe depend on the leader for their key skills (such as fundraising, finance, business development or personnel) but there is no training programme to pass on these skills to others.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________The Successful Succession Toolkit – Sustainable Leadership Risk Indicators




Guidance Notes for Managers and Board Members

1 BEFORE YOU START

The basics: Raising awareness and getting acceptance that leadership is a

suitable subject for discussion are vital first steps. But they may be harder than you expect.

Plan in advance; don’t wait until a crisis is looming. Don’t delay if you see warning signs in your leaders, such as

excessive stress, or reduced commitment. Choose steps which are relevant to your own organisation.

Everyone is different, so not all the items in these Notes will apply to you.

Be prepared to be co-operative, to be innovative, to be challenged. Take a systematic approach, and don’t panic.

Step by step to a sustainable leadership policy: The approach recommended by this paper is in outline as follows: Cautiously introduce the idea of sustainable leadership as a

legitimate and important issue. Get the topic on to a formal agenda for discussion, so that it is

more difficult to ignore. Use the Checklist of Sustainable Leadership Risk Indicators as a

lead-in to the discussion. Agree an approach to working on leadership issues which will not

be unnecessarily challenging or painful for those directly involved. Work together to draw up an action plan or a formal policy using

the options for practical steps (Section 6 of these Guidance Notes) – for the chief officer, the chair and board, and the organisation generally.

Even if your leader is leaving imminently, take the time to discuss the options and draw up a plan.

The Successful Succession Toolkit – Sustainable Leadership Guidance Notes 1


2 INTRODUCING THE SUBJECT

Act promptly: The sooner you start the better, but particularly: if the leader has mentioned resignation or retirement automatically as the chief executive officer’s retirement age

approaches (but be careful not to do anything which will appear to encourage their retirement)

if the leader is showing signs of excessive work-related stress or suffers from ill health which affects their work.

Get the ball rolling: It does not need to be the Chair or CEO who introduces the subject – any board member or a member of the senior management team can suggest a discussion.

Act within the law: Achieving sustainable leadership is about good management and good governance, but you need to be careful that it is not perceived as constructive dismissal or age discrimination. If in doubt seek advice.

Introduce the issue in a non-threatening way: sound out key individuals first to ensure you are not alone cite an external authority which supports the idea of succession

planning (eg, this Report and CPC’s research, a development officer or an umbrella agency, such as the Development Trusts Association Wales)

make it clear that succession planning is a matter of good practice rather than a personal challenge

if the leader is suffering from excessive job-related stress the board must deal with the problem seriously, not just by discussing the succession

if you expect resistance to discussing leadership matters, be prepared to deal with objections:

o this is a practical exercise, not another piece of voluntary sector bureaucracy

o the group will decide how much time to spend on it once you have had the discussion, so it need not entail a lot more work

o the group will be in control – no one else will tell you what you have to do.

Decide who will be involved: Consider in advance how you may need to develop your planning approach to ensure you don’t go off at half cock: for example, you may need to have informal preliminary discussions with close colleagues an open debate at a board meeting or in some other context



a wider consultation with junior staff or volunteers.

Decide how they will be involved: colleagues may feel more comfortable if the subject is dealt with

confidentially, initially at least, without the knowledge of all staff members

you might want to start with a small informal team and open up a wider consultation with staff and/or volunteers later

be careful not to exclude people from the consultations if you will need their co-operation later – eg if you need to retrain them or change job descriptions

be extremely wary about excluding your leader/s from the debate even initially – otherwise you could be seen as disloyal plotters and be prevented from taking the discussion further.



3 GETTING SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP ON THE AGENDA

Start talking and sharing your thoughts: Sustainable leadership affects everyone, and serious progress can’t be made unless it is discussed formally by the people who have responsibility for the organisation – the board members, the chief officer and (usually) senior management staff. So the most important first step is to get a debate going, and encourage people to share their ideas and any concerns they may have.

Options for the context of the discussion: Choose an approach which suits your group, and make it as natural as possible. You might treat it as: an open-ended awareness-raising exercise – to give colleagues a

chance to find out what “sustainable leadership” means a useful way to explore leadership and management issues that

group members have already raised informally or expressed concern about

part of an existing programme of board training or staff development

part of a regular review process the first step to writing a Sustainable Leadership Policy an emergency discussion if you have just heard your leader is

leaving (see Section 7 of these Guidance Notes).

Options for the format: Choose any suitable format, eg: an agenda item at a board meeting a workshop during your organisation’s annual Development Day

or strategy planning “away-day” a formal training session a facilitated session led by an outsider such as a development

worker (who can depersonalise the issues) if all else fails, in informal chats over lunch or in the pub.

Use the Checklist of Sustainable Leadership Risk Indicators: The Checklist can be an icebreaker. Get everyone to fill in a form and then compare and discuss the results: how many boxes have been ticked? is everyone ticking the same boxes, or do people have different

views and perspectives on the issue does the form tell you anything you didn’t know already? (Maybe

the form causes confusion or doesn’t properly reflect the way your organisation works. This won’t matter if it gets a debate going about your leadership.)



4 STRATEGIES, POLICIES AND ACTION

Taking action: Your organisation may decide that it does not need to write a formal policy or strategy for achieving sustainable leadership because the action it needs to take is perfectly clear. You may, for instance, take the view that a package which involves designating a senior employee as the Deputy Manager, beefing up staff training and writing a job description for the Chair includes all the necessary immediate steps. But be careful that your enthusiasm for taking quick decisions does not deter you from continuing to think about other less obvious improvements and building these into a longer term strategy.

A Sustainable Leadership Policy: This will set out the organisation’s objectives for safeguarding its leadership and the steps that you have agreed to take to get there. It can cover both: management by the chief executive officer and other senior staff

and the board level role of the chair and perhaps other board officers.

A Sustainable Leadership Strategy: A strategy will do the same job as a Sustainable Leadership Policy, with the addition of set targets and a timetable for achieving them.

Reviewing progress: Whatever course you choose, you should: have an agreed process so that it is clear what future steps you

will take review progress regularly to make sure that you are taking the

action you need and that it is producing the leadership arrangements which you need.



5 ISSUES TO CONSIDER

The approach: However you deal with leadership issues, the team doing the job should approach it: supportively (leaders often work under great stress, and one

important benefit of talking about leadership is that you can probably find ways of sharing or reducing the pressure)

with sensitivity (you want to strengthen your leaders, after all, not undermine them)

with great care, so that you do not inadvertently make changes which have adverse consequences

from more than one angle to ensure that you are not missing anything.

You need to look at: the organisation’s leadership needs the roles of your present leaders, primarily the chief executive

officer and the chair – especially their job descriptions their strengths (the qualities and skills which you value and would

not want to lose) and the things they are less good at how you currently support each of them professionally and

personally how they are appointed communications and delegation – how your leaders communicate

with others and vice versa tomorrow’s potential leaders – your other staff, board members

and volunteers.



6 OPTIONS FOR ACTION

A health warning: There is no right or wrong way to build sustainable leadership which has the capacity to withstand changes in personnel. But there are some clear techniques which work well in many organisations. You should not be over-cautious in identifying the changes which will suit your situation, but bear in mind that if they don’t feel right for you (ie if they don’t seem appropriate or consistent with your organisation’s structure and ethos) they probably won’t work.

The chief executive officer/manager and staff-level management: Review the management structure:

o analyse the risks involved in leadership changeo check whether the structure meets current needso check whether other staff or volunteers can take

on more responsibility? Designate a senior member of staff as the deputy, and create

opportunities to shadow the chief officer. (This is often regarded as the single most useful step which can be taken.) The deputy’s functions might include:

o helping to take pressure off the chief officero providing interim management if the chief officer

is absent for any length of time (eg through illness)

o being trained up to take over the chief officer’s role if a vacancy occurs.

Prepare a written “operations manual” containing all key policies and procedures for running the organisation. If the task is too large for one person, try encouraging people to write up procedures as they undergo training.

Review communications: Could the chief officer:o make board reports more informative?o keep others better informed?o delegate more?

Have appraisal and supervision procedures for the chief executive officer. The arrangements for the ceo (and other senior employees) should always be at least as good as those for other staff. If supervision or appraisal can’t be carried out internally, consider

o a reciprocal arrangement with the ceo of a similar organisation nearby

o recruiting a volunteer with suitable skillso employing an outside specialist.



Encourage the chief officer to take up training opportunities to fill skill gaps identified during appraisals or supervision

Encourage the chief officer to use a “second brain” o find a trusted person outside the organisation to

help deal with the problemo use “peer support” to depersonalise issues o use formal or informal mentoring schemes.

Make arrangements for interim management: Consider what will happen if the chief executive officer left or was unable to do her or his job; decide what procedures you will put into operation.

Adjust the Equal Opportunities Policy if necessary so that you are not prevented from making internal appointments of senior staff if you want to.

The chair and board-level governance: Write a job description for the chair Examine the role of board members

o give them job descriptions tooo define and emphasise their obligation to support

the chair Provide appraisal and support arrangements for the Chair

which correspond with those for the chief executive officer Prepare written standing orders for running meetings, elections

etc Appoint a potential successor: The role of deputy chair is often

extremely imprecise – is it someone who chairs an occasional meeting if the chair can’t attend? or a leader-in-waiting ready for office if and when the chair stands down? or (as some chairs fear) an enemy who is plotting to oust them given half a chance? Your organisation may need to:

o clarify arrangements for deputising in the chair’s absence and on an interim basis if the post becomes vacant

o clarify how a new chair will be appointed if the present leader leaves

o appoint a designated deputy chair (with a job description)

o provide induction or guidance for the deputy as part of the job of supporting the chair.

Consider introducing fixed terms of office for chairs, board officers or all board members. The requirement for a chair or all members to stand down for at least 12 months after they have been in office for four, five or six years can help to keep boards fresh and permanently alert to the need to develop leadership skills among members. (This is not the same as the common constitutional arrangement for “rotating” board members, under



which members retire after three years but can be reappointed immediately.)

Review communications: Could the chair:o keep board members better informed?o work more closely with the chief executive

officer?o delegate more work to committees or staff?

Provide occasional training for the chairs and vice chairs of committees and subsidiaries.

Gearing up the organisation generally: You should aim to make the discussion of leadership issues a natural and routine part of developing management and governance arrangements. (In fact, people argue that developing sustainable leadership is an integral part of good practice in management and training, and ideally should not need to be dealt with as a separate matter. Pursuing the Investors in People standard might be a way to ensure this.) Confirm your organisation’s vision and objectives: No one

can lead effectively if you have not clarified collectively what you are trying to achieve and why. And if you fail to take this basic step, a new leader – particularly someone recruited from outside – could be an expensive disaster for your organisation.

Build awareness of leadership issues into training for board members and senior staff.

Make succession planning a requirement for chief officers and chairs by writing it into their job descriptions. Refer to it in the terms of reference/standing orders of major subcommittees.

Encourage skill sharing throughout the organisation to create positive career and personnel development opportunities as well as sustainable leadership:

o aim to have key tasks covered by more than one person

o make sure that volunteers as well as staff have training opportunities

o don’t be afraid to make people at all levels of the organisation aware of sustainable leadership issues

o foster understanding of the need to share skills by drawing up an “at risk register” (where all staff report what they think would happen if they experienced a lengthy absence from work ).

Encourage team working and teambuilding (eg at review meetings and away-days)

Share information widely with staff, board members and volunteers using internal newsletters and bulletins

Encourage constructive challenge – so that discussing the leader’s role does not seem threatening

Discuss what leadership means generally and to your organisation, eg:



o what makes a good leader?o what motivates the leader?o what should leaders expect from their colleagues?

Look for leadership potential in others, and foster it by giving them responsibility.

Encourage positive attitudes: Community groups which have carried out succession planning and developed sustainable leadership policies argue that people should not be afraid of change and innovation. Their suggestions include:

o “make change constant” – don’t resist ito “give people space to grow and learn through

failing”o “recruit people who are better than you are”o “look outside the voluntary sector” at leadership

development in private enterpriseo give staff (controlled) opportunities to suggest

improvements to managemento allow leadership to change as the organisation

changes direction. Make arrangements for a regular review of progress on sustainable leadership development, preferably away from your normal workplace. (particularly when you are carrying out wider management and governance reviews): use these to build trust internally talk about roles and responsibilities formally review your performance, and identify gaps include a “risk assessment” of the organisation’s leadership – use

the Checklist of Sustainable Leadership Risk Indicators to check whether there have been any changes since the previous discussion

take periodic “health checks” such as the one used by the Development Trusts Association.



7 IF THE LEADER IS LEAVING NOW…

Prepare – don’t panic: There is still a lot you can do to prepare for an orderly leadership succession.

Think positively: This might be an opportunity for useful change in your organisation.

Use the Checklist of Sustainable Leadership Risk Indicators to get you started, if there is time (see Section 3 of these Notes).

Bring board members (and senior staff) together to assess the challenge: The way you handle this step will depend on how vulnerable you feel. The more “irreplaceable” the departing leader seems, the more thorough you will need to be. identify all the important roles in the organisation, and

highlight the knowledge and skills you are about to lose check your operational procedures – are they available in

writing? review the organisation’s current work priorities and decide

whether you need to focus on fewer issues/activities/projects for a while

decide which are the really critical leadership tasks which must continue (and others which may be less important).

Start planning immediately: refer to sections 5 and 6 above and decide which steps are

appropriate and achievable (immediately, and in the longer term) involve the existing leaders in the discussion if possible.

Confirm interim arrangements: If there is going to be a gap before a new leader comes into the job, be clear about: who will have authority and take decisions in the meantime how much authority they will have to keep things running who will be available to support them.

Consider inviting an outsider in to advise and/or facilitate the discussion. Your staff and board members may be too close to the situation to be completely objective.

Discuss the situation with key stakeholders, and identify anyone else outside the organisation who may be able to help you through the transition to a new leader.



Reflect on past achievements – this shouldn’t be a totally negative experience.

Agree recruitment and appointment arrangements for replacing the leader. You will need to answer questions such as: do job descriptions need to be revised? what induction training will be provided? what arrangements will you make to ensure the new person is

properly supported? how will their early progress be monitored, and what steps will be

taken if they need training or extra support.

Finally, be philosophical: Should you assume your group should run forever? Some organisations run their course and come to a natural end. You might need to consider this possibility when the indispensable leader leaves.

Mel Witherden,“Successful Succession” ProjectCommunity Projects CentreApril 2008



Sustainable Leadership Mentoring Procedure

Context: This sustainable leadership mentoring procedure is mainly intended to be used by an external support worker or facilitator working with senior staff and the Chair of the board or trustees.

Aims: The mentoring procedure involves work in an organisation where the leadership succession has not previously been fully explored, or perhaps not openly discussed at all. Its purpose is to open the matter up for discussion so that leadership can be considered routinely as part of normal management planning or with other work to develop good board-level governance.

Consent: Because of the possible sensitivity of issues discussed, the chief officer and the chair should be made aware of the process involved and should give their consent before the mentoring starts. It is also a good idea to agree on the scope of the discussion in advance to avoid straying into an open-ended exploration of management development or personnel issues which may be beyond the competence of the mentor. All those involved should do so voluntarily, and should be free to opt out at any stage.

Who to include: The participation of the chief officer and chair is probably essential. But to be effective at least three or four senior members of the staff and/or

the board should take part. These numbers are necessary to ensure that there will be a group large enough to communicate the benefits and convince others in the organisation if and when a wider debate is needed.

Involving a significantly larger number of people will lead to a more complicated and time-consuming process which may not be entirely necessary at first. However, there may be advantages to consulting all the board members and the most senior staff individually if leadership issues are contentious.

The mentoring process: Each participant is asked to complete the Checklist of Sustainable

Leadership Risk Indicators form and return these to the mentor in advance.

The mentor meets each person in turn for a private interview. At the start of each interview:

The mentor explains the process and checks that this is understood.

The terms of confidentiality are agreed (for instance: the whole conversation is confidential except where the participant makes it clear that their comments can be passed on to others, or, none of the conversation is confidential, except where the participant specifically says that it is).

The Successful Succession Toolkit – Sustainable Leadership Mentoring 1


The interviews: The mentor uses the responses on the Checklist as starting points for a discussion of leadership in the organisation, and takes a note of significant comments. The mentor should work to explore and take note of any issues which emerge, such as

who provides leadership (the chief officer, the chair, both, others?)

the level of awareness of leadership succession issues, and existing arrangements

how key information about the organisation is documented and shared

delegation, and deputy leader roles the way the leader is supported and

how their well-being is considered the leader’s role in driving or

supporting change in the organisation what would happen if the leader left.

The report: The mentor then produces a report which covers: an assessment of the current need

for, and the state of, succession planning in the organisation any issues which are obstacles to the

organisation carrying out succession planning areas where there is common ground

between the interviewees areas where there may not be

agreement any areas of uncertainty where the

interviews failed to clarify issues recommendations for action, which

will commonly include a proposal for the way the members of the organisation can continue to discuss the issues internally and involve a larger group of people.

Circulating the report: The next stage of the mentoring process is to circulate the report to the interviewees. But the permission of the chief officer or chair should be received before doing so, in case there are concerns that it might have a negative effect.

Reviewing the report: The personnel involved then have one of three options for discussing the report:

a second individual interview with the mentor (which may be followed by a meeting of all the interviewees)

a meeting of everyone involved, facilitated by the mentor

an internal group discussion without the mentor.

This completes the main mentoring procedure.

The way ahead: Unless there are reasons for not pursuing these discussions, the mentor is likely to encourage the group to agree on the way they plan to



continue considering the recommendations and issues raised by the report and to open up a wider debate about leadership in the organisation. The options include: further discussion among those involved in the mentoring circulation of the mentor’s report to board members a board level discussion of leadership issues a discussion with senior management staff based on the mentoring report.

Evaluation: It is advisable that mentors offer the interviewees the opportunity to feed back on the process so they can highlight any aspects which they were unhappy with. A form for this purpose which can be amended to suit the mentor’s needs is attached.

Further support: Organisations which use the mentoring approach but subsequently encounter difficulties with developing sustainable leadership policies may need to use external facilitation, mediation, or sources of outside advice from development workers to make progress. They can contact their local council for voluntary service (CVS) for information about who may be available to help.

Precautions: Discussions about the leadership succession need to be carried out with sensitivity. They may expose strong feelings and views which have been previously suppressed. The mentor may need to mediate between individuals with strongly opposing views and should be extremely careful to avoid creating antagonisms where they did not previously exist. There is also a real risk that a discussion about the succession can stray into a debate about management styles or strategy planning which was never anticipated or agreed by the organisation. Interviewees and the organisation as a whole must have the option to halt or redirect any line of discussion or the whole process if they are unhappy with where it is leading.

Mel Witherden,“Successful Succession” ProjectCommunity Projects CentreApril 2008



Mentoring Evaluation Form

Many thanks for taking part in the recent mentoring sessions on sustainable leadership. We would be very grateful if you would give us feedback on this work by completing this form. Please return this form to Community Projects Centre, 2 Sunlea Crescent, Pontypool NP4 8AD, email [email protected].

Name of organisation:Overall, how helpful was the sustainable leadership mentoring for your organisation?

very helpful fairly helpful not helpful fairly unhelpful

very unhelpful

Were the aims of the mentoring properly explained to you? yes partly no not sure

Did you find the discussions relevant and appropriate? yes partly no not sure

Do you think your views were properly considered? yes partly no not sure

Was confidentiality respected? yes partly no not sureDid you receive feedback in writing? yes noIf so, was the report accurate? yes partly no not sureWas the report fair? yes partly no not sureWas the report useful? yes partly no not sureHow did you find the sustainable leadership mentoring process?informative or enlightening? very a little not at all not sureintrusive or threatening? very a little not at all not sureembarrassing or uncomfortable? very a little not at all not surepersonally rewarding or beneficial? very a little not at all not sureAnycomments?Do you think it’s a good or bad idea to encourage colleagues to discuss leadership issues?

very good fairly good neither fairly bad very badWill colleagues continue to discuss sustainable leadership yes no

How do you think your organisation is likely to change as a result of the sustainable leadership mentoring?

it will be much

stronger

it will be a little stronger

it won’t change

it will be a little weaker

it will be much weaker

Could the mentoring have been handled differently? yes noIf so, what changes would you make?

Any other comments?

Signed ……………………………………………………… Date ………………………

The Successful Succession Toolkit – Sustainable Leadership Mentoring Evaluation form



Documents

Community - sunlea.org.uk€¦ · Web viewAdjust the Equal Opportunities Policy if necessary so that you are not prevented from making internal appointments of senior staff if you