• Claimed that while there were some excellent leaders largely but that they had failed to act with unity; speak out on behalf of the sector; marginalised smaller SE organisations (as corporates who were more often heard by Governments; contest government ‘gagging’ once funded; embrace an advocacy role ; others. Or
• Highlighted the barriers to becoming an effective leader. Comments such as; there’s little financial gain in becoming leaders; corporate charities closeness to Governments disadvantages smaller organisations – keeps them small!; other .

SE members tended to view Boards and the governance of the sector as a:

• Means of achieving resource maximization through effective leadership; and
• Role of leadership in SE organizations is to direct management to engage in new ways of operating; to innovation and flexibility

Yet Boards and their membership were soundly criticised as being underperforming, ignorant of their legal and policy responsibilities, inoperative, and generally un-useful in the work of organisations.

The For Profit (FP) respondents publicly stated that in their view the sector had few ‘qualified’ leaders. They recognised that; there were some qualified leaders of large corporate charities (the reference may be to the many former business leaders employed by corporate charities for their business acumen); there was a need for “stronger leaders and champions” in the sector; the overall situation was that the sector required a “unity of purpose ”.

Government respondents generally focused on leadership that could deliver services while acknowledging that better leadership and management was desirable.

Questions
1.    What is the current status of leadership and management in the SE?
2.    How does governance as leadership currently contribute to impact in the sector; and what changes would you make in this area?
3.    What specific actions or strategies must be taken to improve the ‘quality’ of leaders in the sector?

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)