For me, leadership is so much about empowering the leaders on my team. The different organizational structures you spoke of in an earlier post do exactly that. As such, they are more sustainable to transition and less susceptible to founder’s syndrome, key-man weakness, or any of those hierarchical complications. (Not to say they aren’t complicated in other ways, of course. )

Making it personal and connecting the plan to everybody in the organization is huge. A strategic plan isn’t something that sits on a shelf collecting dust. It’s something that reflects the mission and vision of the organization, and something everybody should have in the back of their mind as they do their daily work. Small milestones are completed on the way to achieving larger goals.

It’s sad that so many employees groan when they hear about an upcoming strategic planning session – I see that happen often. If they were personally engaged with what was going on, the experience would be more positive and true progress more common.

I think it varies from organization to organization. You already see this occuring in small organizations with working boards, so for nonprofits I wouldn’t say this is an entirely new phenomenon. And as orgs grow, networked boards can provide a way for board members to be engaged, rather than strictly govern or control. Wheatley describes this shift quite well – and I think it is an even more natural evolution for nonprofits than for-profit businesses.

What will be interesting to see is how traditional organizations evolve to incorporate new practices and processes. In this respect, I think small to mid-size organizations might have more in their favor than larger, strictly hierarchical institutions.

Have you read “The Starfish and the Spider?”