![]()
Organizational leaders recognize that context matters, so the editorial team worked to collect teaching cases that allow instructors, readers, and practitioners to explore leadership for adult development in a variety of contexts. This section of Case studies in leadership and adult development: Applying theoretical perspectives to real world challenges offers scenarios, supporting literature, and learning activities focused on business and nonprofit settings. Jones invites us to consider nonprofit leadership in the chapter âAdult Development and Nonprofit Board Leadership: The Clash of Self-Authoring Mindsâ using Keganâs work on development stages. The editors encourage readers to thoughtfully work through the discussion questions offered at the close of the chapter. Also, we see this case as a space to think carefully about followership and the social and relational dynamics at play between leaders and followers. For example, consider the question: If you were a member of the board, how might readers engage in such a way that would allow Chrisâs perspective to unfold? What is the potential for other board members to influence Josephâs power on the board meetings? How can Chris better leverage the board as a unit? As you answer these questions, think about how Keganâs stages of development might matter not just for dyads, such as Chris and Joseph, but also for teams.
Cumberland and Nielsen explore how philanthropic ventures might maintain their missionâs integrity while securing funding to keep the effort viable. In âHelping a Nonprofit CEO Pivot Her Leadership Style,â the authors seek to help readers consider multiple perspectives when resolving complex organizational issues. The authors invite readers to apply the frames of Bolman and Dealâs reframing model and situational leadership to understand how to build relationships with stakeholders, understand the utility of aligning leader style with follower readiness, and increase strength by sharing power. This case appropriately asks how leaders can effectively reflect on their leadership to understand the choices that might be engaged to move the organization forward. Goffee and Jones (2000) open an engaging article published by Harvard Business Review by noting, âIf you want to silence a room full of executivesâŚask them âWhy would anyone want to be led by you?ââ This is a pivotal question that any leader should be willing to ask and one we think would make an excellent reflection after careful study of the Cumberland and Nielsen case.
Similar to other businesses, non-governmental agencies are complex systems requiring effective leadership. In âExploring the Role of Emotion and Perceptions of Risk When Leading from the Middle,â Deirdre LeFevre charges the reader to consider a paradigm where leadership emerges from the middle instead of the top of the hierarchy. The author asserts that leaders who emerge from the middle are unprotected by positional titles and are vulnerable to challenges unique to undefined leadership roles. Consider that leaders who occupy roles with a title enjoy a âpositional power shield.â However, leaders who emerge from the middle are often subject to the emotional stress of informally occupying leadership levels without exercising formal control. In this case, LeFevre examines the unique challenges of leading from the middle and how the role of emotion can influence the way people feel, think, and act. From a distributive leadership perspective, LeFevre contends that emotion and risk are inherent. This case helps readers understand the strength emergent leaders bring to the organizational structure and acknowledge the inherent dilemmas. The chapter offers several avenues of reflection for readers. As a positional figurehead in a complex social organization, how might readers encourage, advocate, and reduce emergent leadersâ emotional risk? What organizational practices might assist in reducing uncertainty in the outcomes of risk-taking?
The utility of transformational leadership theory is likely its effective transferability across organizational disciplines. This scenario offered by Jill Fox Bernaciak shares a multinational corporation experiencing an âexternal disruptionâ due to international competition. The organization is also facing a reduction in staff, paternalistic leadership practices impacting gaining and retaining new and talented employees, and a lack of sales growth. This chapter âItâs Time for Transformation! Using Transformational Leadership to Support Learning and Attract Emerging Leadersâ pushes readers to consider the complexity and unpredictability of change in business. The continuing challenges to transforming the organizational structure include team conflict, internal resistance, lack of organizational motivation, cultural competence, power, and politics. Jill Fox Bernaciak shares that transformational leadership characteristics can manage resistance, create connections, raise motivation and morality, and assist in goal setting and group alignment. Reflecting on this case, what behaviors might leaders display to demonstrate the preceding transformational leadership characteristics? In addition to transformational leadership, Bernaciak engages Mezirowâs leadership theory in understanding how a disorienting dilemma could lead to the creation of new problem-solving practices. However, if adults are dogmatic in what Mezirow describes as âhabits of mind,â their entrenched assumptions become barriers to positive practice changes. The editors invite readers to consider the generational differences highlighted in this case as one area where the adult development literature may be especially helpful to leaders. We wonder how the variation in followersâ developmental stages/phases and readiness might map onto generational differences and/or life stages. We suggest reading the work of Kegan and Lahey (2009) on adult developmental processes as an excellent supplement to careful study of the Bernaciak case.
Taken together the cases in this section give readers some insight to the types of challenges business and nonprofit leaders face. Although leadership and followership are part of every organizational setting and industry, and remain somewhat agnostic to field, stakeholder dynamics and organizational goals vary quite a bit. Also important for the discussion here is the consideration that employee professional identity and development needs may differ dramatically between business and industry, nonprofit, and educational settings. We encourage readers to explore the supporting literature, discussion questions, and learning activities in these chapters with the overarching question of how might this dynamic play out in my workplace?
![]()
Introduction
This case study uses Constructive Developmental Theory to explore the nexus of adult development and nonprofit board leadership. Nonprofit organizations address some of the worldâs most complex problems, including poverty and climate change. There are currently more than 1.5 million nonprofit organizations in the United States (Urban Institute, 2019), which employ about 10 percent of the nationâs population (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). These organizations are governed by a board of directors typically comprised of volunteers with professional expertise in a variety of fields (e.g., human resources, public relations, legal). There is a direct connection between the complexity of the board membersâ thinking, as measured by their developmental level (Kegan, 1982; Lahey et al., 2011) and the effectiveness of their leadership (see also, Jones, 2018; Jones & Daniel, 2018).
Case: The Clash of Self-Authoring Minds
Joseph1, age 75, is a retired businessperson and long-time philanthropist (donor and board member). This philanthropic work is a significant part of his identity â he loves giving back and talks enthusiastically about it with anyone who asks.
Josephâs Pattern
Joseph is committed to outcomes and financial sustainability. When nonprofit leaders do not pursue outcomes with fervor, he tries to correct them. His efforts often result in bitter stalemates, with Joseph resigning his role as board member, mentor, and/or founder, and moving on to a different organization. He is beginning to become disillusioned with the nonprofit sector.
Joseph founded two nonprofit organizations himself (in his spare time) to fulfill a need he identified. One organization provides resources to parents whose children are struggling with addiction and another organization works to prevent adolescent substance abuse. He walked away from both organizations because the board members and staff did not want to take the organization in the ârightâ direction. As a business person, he could not in good conscience lead an organization that relied on donations or failed to produce outcomes. He felt he had no choice but to leave what he saw as a sinking ship.
The Invitation
Chris is the Chief Executive Officer of Second Chances Community Center (SCCC), a community-based nonprofit providing a variety of social services to low-income, high-risk populations. He is 45 years old and has more than 10 years of experience leading successful nonprofits. Chris recruited Joseph to the board last year. Joseph had a strong reputation for helping nonprofits operate more efficiently, even if he was known for being stubborn and dogmatic. Joseph was also known for making large financial donations.
The Conflict
Joseph joined the SCCC board with high hopes he could make a difference. SCCC had been operating in the community for 20 years â how ridiculous! A good nonprofit, Joseph believed, should a) strive to put themselves out of business, and b) should be self-sustaining in the meantime. The SCCC was still operating on a shoe-string budget that, in his opinion, was overly reliant on donations. He was determined to help SCCC become financially sustainable and become more effective; and he made his intentions clear at the first board meeting.
After Josephâs first board meeting, Chris left with a headache. He was accustomed to amicable and high-energy board meetings where board members worked together. Josephâs presence had altered the tenor of the meeting. All board members had reviewed the financial statements, but Joseph questioned every line item. He demanded to see the profit and loss statements for past fundraising events. He also asked about social enterprise activities to generate earned income, such as selling promotional items, renting out the organizationâs unused space, or starting a small business. Whew! The questions just kept coming, and Chris was overwhelmed.
It was clear to Chris that some of Josephâs ideas would not work at the SCCC. First of all, starting a business would potentially bring in extra money; however, it was also a huge risk. The organization would have to hire someone with the expertise to get it started and, even then, there was no guarantee. Businesses failed all the time. Second, there would likely always be a need for the SCCC. A small, community-based organization cannot eradicate poverty or its devastating effects â that was a goal best addressed through federal policy. While the SCCC could become more engaged in advocacy, the organization was really designed for grassroots social services. Third, the mission of the SCCC was far greater than just providing services. It served as the heart of the community, and it allowed neighbors to engage each other in a variety of healthy and enriching ways. For example, the SCCC Dadâs Club taught young men how to become fathers; the SCCC Nutrition Education Group provided ongoing social support to people struggling with diabetes; and the SCCC Teen Club provided a safe space for high-risk youth. The organization also provided volunteers and donors an opportunity to contribute to their community in meaningful ways, ways that gave them personal satisfaction and improved their health (Swinson, 2006). Ultimately, the mission of SCCC was far bigger than Joseph perceived it to be.
During his first year as a board member, Joseph continued to pepper Chris with questions and demands, and Chris continued to respond as best he could. He provided Joseph with all the information requested, and he tried to educate Joseph about the comprehensive nature of the mission of the SCCC. But Chrisâ efforts were not enough. Josephâs energy transformed board meetings from an engaged and enthusiastic atmosphere to one characterized by skepticism and conflict. This tension affected other board members, and Chris was sure it would erupt soon with long-term, damaging effects. Neither Chris nor Josep...
