this is the second in a two-part series on what it takes ......may 23, 2015 · global nonprofits:...

Global Nonprofits: Operating Model Blueprints for Going Global and Doing GoodBy Claudy Jules, Chiagozie Nwabuebo, Elizabeth Gannett, and Chase Miller Research ReportMarch 2014

This is the second in a two-part series on what it takes to be an effective global nonprofit

As technology bridges physical distances with increasing speed, many nonprofit senior leaders have become much more knowledgeable about economics and politics in diverse locations on a granular level. As a result, they’re better able to grasp the inherent complexity of social issues from multiple national perspectives. These leaders are realizing that, in many cases, the issues they seek to address are truly global, and that there is great growth potential for organizations that aspire to bring about sustainable, large-scale change. And so, many are making the difficult choice to expand operations beyond the borders of their home countries.

Global Nonprofits: Operating Model Blueprints for Going Global and Doing Good

2 | Accenture Institute for High Performance | Copyright © 2014 Accenture. All rights reserved.



“Going global,” in practice, however, may be the hardest thing these leaders have attempted to do. Such expansion requires an organization to become a source of durability in multiple locations. It requires managing across time zones, language barriers, cultures, and foreign regulations and currencies. And it necessitates handling all of that against a backdrop of four stark realities:

Financial constraints. The nonprofit sector has not been immune to the lackluster global economic environment as numerous governments and donors worldwide have tightened their belts—leading to cuts and/or more focused investments across education, health, and poverty funding.

Increased competition. Nonprofits are facing intensified competition from for-profits and the rise of the hybrid social enterprise. As a result, transparency, expertise with data and analytics, transparency, and the ability to be able to demonstrate and even showcase impact are more important than ever.

Increased visibility. Social media and social environments are changing the ways nonprofits relate to the world. Social media has ushered in a new era of interaction and communication that is constantly evolving and influencing organizations at all levels and corners of the globe, and as such nonprofits must adapt. Smartphones and tablets, while enabling access to more recipients, are also changing the way recipients and nonprofits interact with one another.

Demographic shifts. As baby boomers and “gen-Xers” retire, nonprofit organizations will face a talent shortage and will need to attract and recruit the youngest generations of workers more aggressively. Similarly, they will need to intensify their leadership development efforts; the nonprofit sector already faces a significant leadership talent shortage.

Is it any wonder that many efforts fail? Global nonprofits are too often fragile, for all of the reasons listed above. And so the question becomes: How can global nonprofit leaders best prepare for and meet these challenges?

Our ResearchTo better understand the issues that global nonprofits face, and to identify promising solutions, we interviewed top managers at global nonprofit organizations including the Gates Foundation, Global Health Corps, Teach for All, Echoing Green, the Kellogg Foundation, Cuso International, and Habitat for Humanity. We asked the following questions:

• Will the current trend towards diversifying the leadership team pay off, or will such efforts magnify the challenges that global nonprofits face? A diverse team potentially has a much more accurate view of the hurdles it faces—and the optimal solutions—than a team that is not diverse. But what about the realities of working with people who have divergent and sometimes contradictory perspectives and worldviews? Can having a diverse team at the top make decision-making more difficult? And if so, what can be done?

• Have these organizations aligned their approach to leadership and their approach to international expansion? Does their infrastructure adequately support their work? In order to achieve sustained impact on a global scale, members of a nonprofit leadership team must be able to align around priorities, shift strategy as necessary, and employ a fine-tuned decision-making process. Doing so requires keen attention to the ways in which the organization’s processes, metrics, technology and talent deliver on its value proposition. The organization must also work with an operating model that fits its mission and its context. What keeps an organization capable in the face of shifting geo-political dynamics and funding relationships, even as growth gives rise to new strategic needs?

We then synthesized their insights with the results of Accenture’s previous (and ongoing) study of global leadership and operating models. We also considered other literature in the field.1



Ultimately, we found that strong global nonprofits pay heightened attention to three factors:

First, they take an ensemble approach to leadership. When a nonprofit is expanding to (or operating in) far-flung geographies, then a traditional, hierarchical decision-making structure isn’t the most effective approach to leadership. The key is learning how to match the complexity of the environment while simplifying the process of management. An ensemble approach to leadership does this because ensembles are agile groups whose members can be drawn together in combinations suited to specific decision situations or contingencies and who, because they share certain understandings and a common discipline, can be reconfigured without significant loss in effectiveness. (This topic is explored in depth in the first article in this series: “Global Nonprofits: To Achieve Greater Impact, Develop an Effective Leadership Ensemble.”)

Second, they’re acutely aware of the implications of operating globally on an organization’s essential capabilities and assumptions. In a global environment that is fraught with risk for even the most cautious organizations, the consequences of any setback are magnified. Recovery—from system or technological glitches, miscommunications with partners or funders, misfires at the program level— is difficult. That’s why it is important not to take fundamental considerations—which include the organization’s reason for being, its core values and principles, its governance, its norms, its systems, and its processes—for granted. These considerations are the keel that helps keep a nonprofit stable as it navigates unfamiliar territory.

Third, they’re in explicit agreement about the management philosophy that underpins their decision-making. What is their operating model blueprint? What is the default understanding through which the organization executes its work and its growth strategy? Leaders have a choice about how (and how much) they focus on different modes of authority and control. They can also differ in the extent of global integration they hope to achieve (i.e. the extent to which they encourage local autonomy). It’s important to be on the same page, because such differences can quickly weaken an organization’s capacity to perform at a high level.

The balance of this report will focus on the second and third factors: essential capabilities and assumptions, and operating model blueprints.



Essential Capabilities and AssumptionsMany considerations form a nonprofit’s bedrock, but there are also several essentials. These are:

The organization’s mission and means. When so much is unfamiliar, it’s important to have broad management agreement across the following:

• Core Purpose—What is the organization’s reason for being?

• Aspirations—What is our envisioned future and what strategic goals will we achieve in that pursuit?

• Core Values and Culture—What mindsets and behaviors support our values?

• Strategic Principles—What differentiates us from others?

If the organization asked each member of the senior leadership team and board to answer those questions, would their answers be the same? What about the staff? As Jim McHale, vice president of program strategies at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, noted, at Kellogg, the organization tries to be sure that employees at all levels are on the same page with regard to mission and means from the day they start working there by having all new staff participate in orientation at headquarters. Doing so establishes common ground that helps bridge distances later on, no matter what decision is on the table, or where.

“When a new employee starts at the Kellogg Foundation,” he explained, “they go through a pretty intense orientation that’s really focused on the overall values and mission of the Foundation. [It’s] related to the values and principles of our founder, W.K. Kellogg, and what he stood for. That orientation is required to take place in Battle Creek, even for international staff, because we really want to make sure that international staff members feel a part of the organization. We also want them to know by first name the person they’re communicating with in Battle Creek for grant commitments or legal or accounting or communications or evaluation or whatever part of the organization.”

Teach for All provides another example. As Dan Obus, vice president of finance, technology, and administration, said: “We talk about core values a lot here. That’s the language we use when we’re talking about the fit of people. When we say, “fit,” we often mean, “core values fit.” You can find the values on our website. We hire for them, we use them in our rubrics, we use them in our performance reviews, we measure people against these values. The core values are meant to apply across the network to partners as well. That was an innovation after our second year, when we decided that these values should apply to partners when they engage with the network, not just apply internally. That’s another way of maintaining a unified culture, even though we’re fairly dispersed in our operating model.”

The funding model. In the wake of tightened budgets, and increased competition from other nonprofits, social enterprises and for-profits, global nonprofit organizations often seek to diversify their funding sources. Doing so may reveal new areas of growth for their organizations. In the face of adversity, a diversified funding model can also give rise to strategies that maximize efficiencies. But diversifying funding

sources can also lead an organization to dilute its mission by spreading resources too thinly among a growing roster of priorities. On the risk/reward scale, where do new funding strategies come out? As Dorothy Stoneman, founder and president of YouthBuild, told us, “We have a whole set of principles that we follow, where we’re trying to find funders who want to achieve what we want to achieve, and we work together with them to do that. We’re not switching our goals or philosophy because they switched their strategies or their priorities. However, sometimes an opportunity to do something much faster than expected emerges because a funder has opened a new door."2

The approach to governance. Who is on the board and why? Has the board’s expertise and diversity kept up with the organization’s growth, and the challenges it faces across its operations? Do the organization’s directors, as a group, understand the complexities of working in a global environment? These are questions to revisit on a regular basis; as a nonprofit expands its footprint and reach, it is a real danger that it will outgrow the expertise of its board. The board, like every other aspect of the organization, needs to be an integral part of the way in which the organization achieves its goals. For example, Stoneman explained, at YouthBuild, “Our board of directors is deeply rooted in local communities. It was not established as a fundraising board; it’s primarily an accountability board. Our directors provide superb financial oversight, advise on policy and strategy, and reflect the perspective of our constituency. They are a majority people of color, include four YouthBuild graduates, plus researchers, advocates, and business people. They are deeply respectful of the grassroots.”



A well-articulated programs portfolio. What makes a program successful? What are the ‘must have’ elements? Do those elements translate well to new locations? Or will the organization be blindsided when it attempts to replicate its models, or impose its approach on new partners or affiliates? Explicit sensitivity to the needs of the different countries and new constituents sends a signal that the organization is in it for the long haul. As Teach for All’s Dan Obus noted, “We decided on a fairly simple set or small set of principles that all the partners would have to follow. We’re not generally on the boards of our partners; we’re not making management decisions for them. It’s very grassroots in that sense. That’s been a deliberate choice over time. It sometimes makes it tough because we may think that something is a best practice, but we won’t force it on our partners. The key is that we encourage local adaptation and local autonomy within those principles."

The technology backbone. Technology isn’t a back-office function anymore. Nor should it exist in a silo, brought to the table only after a specific need has been articulated. Yes, tech is an essential part of the “machine” that gets an organization’s daily work done smoothly. But it is also a path to envisioning and enabling brand-new strategies and solutions. What technologies can a growing, global organization incorporate to deliver more value for staff and beneficiaries? What is the potential gain if the organization acquires new databases to share information across agencies? What is the potential gain

if the organization invests in technology to manage contacts and improve transparency? Or uses mobile apps to report data, to improve performance management and, by extension, transparency? What about the potential gain of creating an online giving capability, or leveraging social networking tools?

As Tim Cross, president of YouthBuild International, told us: "I’ve said to people that if I tried to build and lead the organization that I’ve led in the last seven years back in 1990, I do not think we could have pulled it off. Why? Because technology has enabled the ease of communication, and has lowered the cost. The Internet, Skype, and increasingly, social media—these have enabled us to work with partners and not have to fly on planes all the time. To get the initial proposition shaped up, and then to build the case for financing, we could not have done that in the 1990s. Certainly we couldn’t have grown the operation as quickly as we have. I’m not talking about sophisticated technology, but since 2000 even, and especially with the advent of Skype, there’s a level of communication enabled that wasn’t there before. That’s absolutely critical."

The ability to measure progress. Interwoven with the importance of an organization’s technological capabilities is the need to measure impact. The nonprofit leaders we spoke with were unanimous in their belief that creating operational systems and processes that yield strategic information and measurements is a must-have for survival as a global organization. Enhancing transparency and accountability improves governance and attracts and retains funding. As Suchita Guntakatta,

Deputy Director of Global Development who is responsible for leading the strategic, financial, and operational activities for both Vaccine Delivery and Polio teams at the Gates Foundation said, “We’re all about ‘measuring impact.’ We want to make sure that every investment we’re making, all of the work we’re doing, and all of our different activities with partners, are driving toward the same specific goals—and that we’re able to measure the outcomes of those goals.”

The ability to build and sustain relationships. Global nonprofits have to perform in unfamiliar territory, with unfamiliar risks, in cooperation or collaboration with unfamiliar people, on topics or problems that likely sit at the intersection of public, private and social sectors. And so the ability to build and sustain relationships becomes a premium skill. This requires global nonprofits to operate more as “network-centric” organizations—that is, to exercise the ability to build and nurture productive interactions horizontally across regions and functional responsibilities with affiliates and partner organizations. As Barbara Bush, co-founder and president of Global Health Corps, told us, "in order to make a positive change for a cause or a constituency in a foreign environment, nonprofit leaders and staff have to be able to relate to, and problem-solve with, people from diverse backgrounds, with diverse views, expertise, priorities, and general ways of doing things."



Organizing to Do Good: Four Blueprints to ConsiderTalent and culture, or structure and processes? An integrated decision-making approach, or local autonomy? Which of these elements are most important? Under what circumstances would one element need greater emphasis? What are the nonprofit leaders’ default operating model blueprints, and when should they be challenged?

The global leadership ensembles we studied either placed greater emphasis on issues of talent and culture, or on structure and processes. Similarly, they generally focused more fully on creating a more completely integrated organization, or on nurturing local autonomy.

Taken together, the content and the relative importance of these four elements characterize the organization’s operating model. Each element can be thought of as a dial that can be set at different levels; the configuration is the unique combination of these dial settings. To achieve high performance, the elements need to work in synergy, and must be aligned with the company’s expansion strategy.

For the purposes of illustration, we will describe four operating model blueprints (shown in the accompanying graphic). What’s important to understand, however, is that none of the nonprofits we studied fit seamlessly into one of the four quadrants. Rather, they showed tendencies towards one or another. By describing the blueprints as static models, our hope is to allow nonprofit leaders to identify their “default” tendencies, and with those in mind, be better prepared to think through the design approach that will best serve their needs. Our goal is to provide a useful jumping-off point for aspiring global

nonprofits—a foundation for productive discussions about expanding their organization’s capacity to do good.

Incubators. The incubator blueprint encourages global integration through an emphasis on shared values and culture. Ensembles that apply this blueprint value a cohesive culture, and see themselves as stewards of the values and behaviors that will generate future success. They are strong in speaking with one voice, and in defining company values. The decisions they make—about partners, programs, funding relationships—are all grounded in their sense of cultural fit.

An incubator blueprint is often taken by ensembles whose organizations are entering new geographies, but are not necessarily looking to be “first-movers” and break new ground. (For a closer look at the incubator approach, see the sidebar, “A Values-Based Blueprint is the Default at Echoing Green.”)

Focus on talent and organizational culture

Focus on processes and organizational structure

Leadership ensembles can focus on different modes of authority and control…

And can also differ in the extent of integration they hope to achieve.

Seeking global integration

Maintaining local autonomy

Incubators Encourages global integration through emphasis on shared values and culture

Diplomats Empowers locally while encouraging global conversations

Directors Identifies processes that must be locally unique and devolves local decisions to operational teams

Engineers Fosters global efficiency through process standards and a flat structure

Figure 1: Operating Model Blueprints



Diplomats. Diplomats empower locally while encouraging global conversations about best practice. Ensembles that apply this blueprint pursue outcomes through a process of give-and-take among local branches or partners, and also between local branches and partners and headquarters.

Ensembles may often use the diplomat blueprint when expanding globally not just to access new geographies, but also to integrate new talent and new ideas. In the short-term, they are more concerned with the quality of management than they are with speed and efficiency.

As Teach for All’s Dan Obus explained, “Teach For All doesn’t go out and seek to find a partner in a given country. Nor do we decide, ‘I think Nigeria needs a program. Let’s try to set that up there.’ We seek to raise the visibility of the model among the highest potential entrepreneurs and respond to the interest of those who

have found out about us and have decided they want to start up a program that they feel adheres to the principles of the Teach For All network. Over a period of time, there’s a kind of “courtship” period that can often take a year or longer, during which we work with them to build their understanding of the model and help them develop plans to adapt it into their context. Simultaneously, we work to understand if they really are looking to develop an aligned program, and whether they are actually able to execute on it.“

Obus’s description of a position at TFA called the “partner engagement director” is also revealing: “The partner engagement director’s job description is not entirely about supporting the partner,” he said. “It’s also about extracting lessons from the partner and feeding it back to the network. So very much embedded in their whole setup is the idea of a two-way street and feeding back and not just receiving from the central organization.”

Engineers. This blueprint fosters global efficiency through process standards and a flat structure. Engineer-oriented ensembles prioritize the structure and processes that serve as connective tissue for their various locations. As Gates Foundation’s Suchita Guntakatta described, “we’re working on harmonizing processes across our global programs. This standardization ensures that each global program conducts work in a similar manner, allowing leadership to make necessary tradeoffs to prioritize for improvement.” Structure and processes create the common ground, creating a forum in which diverse views and perspectives can be shared, examined, and vetted. Here, ensemble leaders don’t disregard their organization’s culture, but they view changes to processes and structure as the most immediately useful tools at their disposal. Their view is that these tools will ultimately build and foster a single culture across the organization.

Directors. Ensembles using this blueprint want decisions to be made by those who are closest to the operations involved. They identify processes that must be locally unique, and delegate local decisions to local operating teams. Like engineers, they use processes and structure as a frame to guide how responsibilities are delegated. Habitat for Humanity offers an example. Here’s an organization that is well known for its engineer-model approach to proving affordable housing in the United States. But when Habitat leaders decided to go global, they also realized that their previously successful and finely tuned structure and processes might not serve them well in new geographies, and so their default, in new locations, more closely resembles a director approach.



As Senior Vice President of Strategy, Dave McMurtry, explained, Habitat’s recent discussions about strategy on a global scale yielded three goals: community transformation, sector transformation, and broad awareness transformation. To help new partners figure out where they want to concentrate their efforts in what McMurtry calls the “housing value chain,” they go through a matrix exercise. “We end up with a three bubble matrix map that says, ‘This country wants to serve these many individuals over five years under these three goals.’ Then we work with their business model. We create the business model working side by side with the team, and we say, ‘All right. Let’s figure out for your country context, for your country culture, your situation, and your business environment, what are the creative ways we could turn our old model on its head to meet these three goals’ targets?"

For example, McMurtry cites the Philippines, which, as he told us, “is right now very heavy in goal one because they have big disaster recovery programs due to where the Philippines is geographically located in the world, causing both weather disasters and sectarian fighting in the south. They have an exciting government program that rewards non-profits for building new housing units, so Habitat Philippines is an organization that’s quite heavy in goal one, while striving to grow goals two and three.” The original Habitat model, in a global context, has evolved into, a model that McMurtry said could be called “It depends.”

“It depends on the country and the country context. It also depends on the political context, the government, the partnership context. And I imagine if there are 70 countries, at the end of our five year strategic plan, that have gone through this process, I wouldn’t be surprised if you have 20–30 varying business plans.”

CalibrationNonprofit leaders can take these three steps to ensure alignment around the blueprint that best fits their ensemble:

Understand what operating model blueprint leaders currently prefer. Ask, “What is our default model?” It’s useful to talk about the ensemble’s instinctive preferred operating model approach. Many of the people we interviewed based their approach on an unspoken, assumed agreement among top leaders, rather than on an informed conversation of benefits and drawbacks.

Assess, continually, how that preferred blueprint helps or hinders your organization’s goals for global expansion and sustainable impact. As organizations evolve and as new global and local contextual pressures or opportunities emerge, it might be advantageous to shift operating model blueprints. As we noted earlier, none of the nonprofit leaders we spoke with were wedded to a single type of blueprint. Rather, they expressed certain “default” tendencies for their organizations as a whole, but were emphatic about the need for flexibility, particularly in smaller ensemble configurations.

Understand the connection between a given ensemble’s operating model, and the organization’s general default approach. Being able to talk about this connection ensures that the members of an ensemble are aligned with the imperatives of the organization as a whole, even if their approach is not in sync with the organization’s default approach. Making sure that all ensemble managers understand the link—and the possible differences in approach—also helps clarify and resolve some of the inherent tensions that can arise when leaders take the helm together as an ensemble.

Impact for the Long-TermEnsemble leadership, solid fundamentals, and clarity around operating models together make for a powerful package for global nonprofits. Together, they foster a capable organization—one that is resilient, and able to meet and overcome significant obstacles and make sustainable positive change on the global stage.





A Values-Based Blueprint is the Default at Echoing Green Launched in 1987 by the global private equity firm, General Atlantic, Echoing Green provides seed funding to social entrepreneurs who seek to launch organizations to address social issues through systemic change. When we spoke with Echoing Green President Cheryl Dorsey, the nonprofit’s board had just approved an ambitious three-year growth plan. Dorsey’s comments about the plan, and the process of getting the organization ready for what promises to be “an aggressive push to get to the next level,” reflect a default preference for the incubator operating model.

In her words:

“One of our worries is that we’ve always been a small organization. We’ve been able to protect and nurture our culture, lead through our values. And our concern is, ‘If we grow, what happens to that which we’ve tended to so closely?’ But when our board chair, who is one of the managing directors at General Atlantic and an extraordinary business and philanthropic leader, came and talked to us, I found his insights really interesting, and his views heartening. General Atlantic invests

hundreds of millions in companies and their goal is to take them public. But at their core as a company, they always look for the human talent as well. That’s really what they’re known for—building strong teams, finding the right entrepreneur.

"We’re probably going to almost double in size in the next couple of years. And we had been spending many sleepless nights thinking about how we’re going to structure this organization. And his advice to us was: ‘There’s really no magic to how you structure your organization.’ His key takeaway was that you should always remember your purpose, always. Start your day and end your day thinking about what you’re here to accomplish.’ And that resonated with me. Being a purpose-driven organization is absolutely essential. That then percolates or trickles down to everything you do, including hiring folks. The right answer is always to hire that person whose values are consistent with the values of the organization.

“Our board chair, who has probably been involved in helping hundreds and hundreds of companies grow or not grow, said, ‘You see tons of organizations deteriorate when they start to focus too tightly on fitting a staff, a particular person, with a particular

set of skills in a particular type of job category.’ So is it worth it to go down a rabbit hole, looking for a particular type of specialization, or is it better to look for fit? I think you should always prioritize fit. It’s what we were doing intuitively, organically, and his comments validated our approach.

"I think maybe as nonprofits, when you’re mission-driven, it’s sometimes easier to suss out fit than it would be in a different type of organization, a for-profit enterprise. But it still was helpful to have that articulated, because at our core, if you lead with your values, if you filter with your values, if you always use your purpose as your touchstone, it really matters and it makes a difference.”



Notes

1 See “Leadership Ensembles: Orchestrating the Global Company,” by Robert J. Thomas, Joshua Bellin, Claudy Jules, and Nandani Lynton, released in 2012 by the Accenture Institute for High Performance. Also see “Leadership Ensembles: Turning the Key for a More Effective Operating Model.” (Accenture Institute for High Performance, 2013) These reports present the findings of a study that included interviews with 50 top leaders at 39 global companies across five continents in developed and emerging markets. Accenture’s Institute for High Performance also surveyed 200 worldwide human resources executives at multinational companies about their leadership development practices, and their development plans for the next generation of leaders.

2 YouthBuild became a federal program in the U.S. 1992; as a result, its funding model is a mix of government and private funding. As Stoneman explained, “We chose to seek public funds because we thought there was a public responsibility to diminish poverty and increase opportunity, and because the process of engaging with government built the leadership skills of our students and graduates. In 1992, we succeeded in getting YouthBuild authorized in public law. This has resulted in over $1.3B flowing directly to local YouthBuild programs through a competitive process run by the US Department of Labor, based on local need and program performance. YouthBuild USA provides TA and training for quality assurance, and brings in private funds to create cutting-edge innovation to complement the government funding.”

Copyright © 2014 Accenture All rights reserved.

Accenture, its logo, and High Performance Delivered are trademarks of Accenture.

About AccentureAccenture is a global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company, with approximately 281,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries. Combining unparalleled experience, comprehensive capabilities across all industries and business functions, and extensive research on the world’s most successful companies, Accenture collaborates with clients to help them become high-performance businesses and governments. The company generated net revenues of US $28.6 billion for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2013. Its home page is www.accenture.com.

About the Accenture Institute for High PerformanceThe Accenture Institute for High Performance creates strategic insights into key management issues and macroeconomic and political trends through original research and analysis. Its management researchers combine world-class reputations with Accenture’s extensive consulting, technology and outsourcing experience to conduct innovative research and analysis into how organizations become and remain high-performance businesses. Please visit us at www.accenture.com/institute.

ContactClaudy Jules +1 301 537 0296 [email protected]

Martin Rodgers +1 703 401 9849 [email protected]

Elaine Turville +1 571 414 3344 [email protected]

About the AuthorsClaudy Jules ([email protected]) is a Senior Principal in Accenture’s Strategy practice where he serves as an advisor to senior executives providing counsel on a wide range of organization and leadership issues across the private, public and social sectors.

Gozie Nwabuebo is a Manager in Accenture’s Strategy practice with a focus in the nonprofit sector.

Elizabeth Gannett is a Management Consulting Business Analyst aligned with Accenture’s Nonprofit Group.

Chase Miller is a Manager in Accenture’s Talent and Organization practice, and his experience spans across the private, public, and nonprofit sectors.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the senior nonprofit leaders who participated in our study and interview sessions for their time, insights, and passion. Our reports on organization and leadership would not have been possible without their willingness to share their stories, and the lessons they have learned along the way.

We would also like to thank the following people for their review, feedback, and sponsorship: Martin Rodgers, Elaine Turville, Sean Burke, Robert Thomas, Joshua Bellin, David Light, and Regina Maruca.

this is the second in a two-part series on what it takes ......may 23, 2015 · global nonprofits:...

Documents