Week 1 of The Purpose Playbook Series
The Purpose Playbook theme for October focuses on how nonprofits can choose leadership and organizational models more aligned with their vision and values. For organizations dedicated to social change, it is crucial to move beyond traditional leadership structures and embrace models that distribute power, empower teams, and invite diverse perspectives.
By Dr. Virginia Lacayo
At the heart of every successful non-profit lies a shared vision—a collective dream that motivates individuals, communities, and movements toward meaningful change. However, the very nature of this shared vision calls for something that is often overlooked in leadership: shared leadership. In a sector built on collaboration, inclusion, and community-driven missions, traditional hierarchical models undermine the very purpose these organizations strive for. Shared leadership is not just a strategy; it’s an imperative for aligning leadership practices with the transformative vision most non-profits hold.
Shared Visions Require Shared Leadership
No single person or group can effectively represent the diverse needs, perspectives, and talents that drive long-term, sustainable impact. Centralized leadership models, common in many organizations, create a disconnect between leaders and the communities they serve. This makes it harder to respond to complex, evolving challenges. In contrast, shared leadership allows for a more responsive, adaptive, and inclusive approach that reflects the core values of non-profit organizations—equity, justice, and collaboration.
Good Intention is not Shared Leadership
Good intentions, while crucial, are not the same as shared leadership. Leaders may genuinely want to create inclusive, collaborative environments, but if decision-making power remains concentrated at the top, those intentions rarely translate into meaningful change. Without distributing authority and giving real influence to the voices of front-line staff and the communities served, the ideal of inclusion becomes hollow. Structural barriers, like hierarchical silos, prevent the collaboration that leaders might strive for, no matter how good their intentions.
Additionally, intentions do not ensure accountability; when only a few hold power, it becomes harder for the organization to stay true to its vision. Shared leadership, on the other hand, spreads responsibility across the organization, creating resilience and adaptability that one leader alone cannot provide. Ultimately, for a non-profit to truly align with its mission and values, good intentions must be paired with systems that foster shared leadership, ensuring that every voice is heard and every action aligns with the organization’s vision for long-term impact.
Traditional Leadership Models: In Conflict with Non-Profit Visions
Traditional leadership structures can unintentionally create barriers to achieving the vision and values of a non-profit. Here’s how each symptom harms the mission:
-
Power Concentration Reduces Community Involvement: When decision-making is concentrated at the top, the voices of the community and front-line staff are left out. Even though most organizations do “consult” with critical stakeholders, consultation is not the same as true participation in the decision-making process. When people know they are being “consulted” about a solution thought by the leadership team, they are aware that their views might, at best, be considered, and, therefore, they often disengage from the outcomes. This disconnect weakens your vision of inclusion and responsiveness because the people who know the needs of the community best aren’t involved in shaping solutions. As a result, decisions may not reflect the realities on the ground, leading to initiatives that miss the mark or don’t have the intended impact.
-
Siloed Structures Limit Collaboration: Hierarchical structures often foster isolated decision-making within departments. This lack of collaboration prevents the organization from pooling its collective intelligence, creativity, and expertise to solve complex issues. The vision of working together toward common goals gets lost when teams operate in silos, reducing innovation and the ability to develop holistic, coordinated solutions. Ultimately, the organization struggles to fully align with its mission.
-
Mission Drift for Financial Stability: In traditional models, leaders may focus heavily on securing funding or complying with donors, sometimes at the expense of the organization’s original mission and well-being. This shift in focus can lead to “mission drift,” where the organization prioritizes financial sustainability over creating meaningful impact. As the core mission becomes secondary, the organization’s ability to stay true to its vision—and deliver on the change it seeks to make—diminishes.
-
Slow Decision-Making Reduces Agility: Multiple layers of approval in traditional leadership structures slow down the decision-making process. This lack of agility can harm the velocity of the vision by preventing timely responses to community needs or opportunities for impact. When an organization is slow to adapt, it risks becoming disconnected from the evolving challenges it aims to address, making it harder to fulfill its mission effectively.
-
Top-Down Leadership Reduces Staff Engagement: When authority is held primarily at the top, staff and volunteers can feel disengaged from the mission. Without shared responsibility and involvement in decision-making, the goal of having a shared vision and sense of ownership weakens. This leads to lower motivation, reduced commitment, and, ultimately, a less effective organization. An engaged team is crucial for driving the mission forward, and traditional leadership models can inhibit this connection.
A Business Fable: The Story of HopeRise
Let’s bring this to life with a story—a "business fable" of a non-profit called HopeRise. While fictional, HopeRise’s journey mirrors the experiences of many organizations I’ve encountered.
HopeRise was founded by a group of passionate activists with a simple, powerful mission: to provide housing and support services to marginalized communities. In its early years, leadership decisions were made through consensus, and the organization thrived on collaboration. The voices of staff, volunteers, and even community members were integral to shaping HopeRise’s direction.
However, as HopeRise grew, the leadership adopted a more corporate structure, thinking it would bring efficiency. A board of directors was established, followed by an executive director, and layers of middle management. The leadership circle, once inclusive, became much smaller, with most decisions funneling through a few people at the top. The disconnect between leadership and the community grew, resulting in several symptoms I mentioned above:
Leadership Bottlenecks
The new structure centralized decision-making, which meant that every initiative had to go through the board or executive director. An emergency housing program, proposed by front-line staff in response to a sudden community crisis, was delayed in months of review. By the time it was approved, the opportunity to make a meaningful impact had passed. The bottleneck caused not only frustration but also harm to the community they were meant to serve.
Disengaged Staff
Staff who once felt empowered to contribute ideas were now sidelined. Decisions were made by senior leadership, far removed from the day-to-day work. Junior staff, often the ones closest to the community’s needs, felt their voices were no longer valued. This led to frustration, burnout, and eventually high turnover rates. Despite leadership’s rhetoric about inclusion, it was clear that the decision-making process had become exclusionary.
Mission Drift
Over time, HopeRise’s leadership became more focused on securing large grants and maintaining the organization’s financial stability, rather than on the needs of the community. Fundraising events catered to big donors, often sidelining the very issues the organization had set out to address. The mission of “housing first” had transformed into “funding first,” and the staff began to feel that the organization had lost its way.
Intersectional Leadership: Breaking Free from Traditional Models
Reading this, you may see elements of HopeRise’s story reflected in your own organization. The hard truth is that non-profits, particularly those focused on equity and justice, cannot thrive under leadership models that mirror the very systems of oppression they aim to dismantle.
This is why I developed the Intersectional Leadership model, which is designed to disrupt these old paradigms. It breaks down traditional power hierarchies that stifle innovation and replaces them with a more equitable, collaborative structure. Intersectional Leadership incorporates three key elements:
-
Equity-Based Leadership
This challenges existing power dynamics and advocates for decentralized leadership, where diverse voices—particularly those from marginalized communities—are actively included in decision-making. It reflects a commitment to justice and fairness, ensuring that leadership is inclusive of neurodiversity, thought diversity, and background diversity. -
Mindset Coaching
Leaders must unlearn biases, develop emotional intelligence, and build resilience. Intersectional Leadership places a strong emphasis on mindset coaching, helping leaders develop self-awareness and the skills needed to lead in complex environments. This creates a culture where everyone can contribute fully to the organization’s mission. -
Complexity Science
Non-profits often deal with complex, interconnected problems like homelessness, inequality, or climate change. Intersectional Leadership embraces this complexity, encouraging leaders to move beyond simplistic solutions and instead engage with the broader ecosystem in which their organization operates.
By integrating these elements, non-profits create a culture of belonging and collaboration, where all voices are valued. This distributed approach to leadership fosters innovation and ensures the organization stays adaptable, relevant, and aligned with its mission.
HopeRise’s Turning Point & What You Can Learn From It
The story of HopeRise doesn’t end with failure. The organization reached a turning point when leadership recognized the growing disconnect between themselves and the community. By embracing a shared leadership model, they realigned with their mission and values. Here’s how they did it, along with tips on how you can implement each approach:
-
Decentralizing Decision-Making: Leadership teams, composed of staff at various levels, were given responsibility for key decisions. This empowered front-line workers to take ownership of programming and community outreach, making the organization more responsive to the people they served.
Tip: Start by forming cross-functional teams that include staff from different levels and teams. Allow them to lead on specific projects or initiatives to build confidence and encourage ownership. -
Creating a Culture of Co-Leadership: Instead of consolidating power in the executive director, leadership was distributed across teams. This created a more inclusive environment, where every member felt their voice mattered in shaping the future of the organization.
Tip: Set up rotating leadership roles within teams, so different individuals have the opportunity to lead meetings or projects. This fosters a shared leadership mindset, gives more people a seat at the decision-making table, and promotes ownership and mutual accountability. -
Mindset Coaching: HopeRise invested in mindset coaching to help leaders and the team unlearn biases, develop emotional intelligence, and build resilience. This created a culture where everyone could contribute fully to the mission and adapt to complex challenges.
Tip: Introduce regular coaching sessions focused on emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and bias awareness. Encourage leaders at all levels to participate in personal development to foster a more inclusive and adaptive organizational culture.
Why Shared Leadership is the Future of Non-Profits
Non-profits are uniquely positioned to lead systemic change in our communities. They exist to challenge entrenched systems of inequality and to advocate for a more just and equitable world. But this bold vision cannot be achieved if their internal leadership models mirror the same oppressive structures they are working to dismantle.
Shared visions require shared leadership because the very nature of non-profit work is collective, dynamic, and rooted in the diverse needs of the communities they serve. When power is concentrated at the top, organizations become disconnected from their mission, less responsive to their stakeholders, and more vulnerable to mission drift. In contrast, shared leadership distributes authority across the organization, allowing for more voices to be heard and more perspectives to be considered.
-
Inclusivity and Empowerment: Shared leadership fosters a culture of inclusion, where every member of the organization, from front-line staff to board members, has a role in decision-making. This approach ensures that the leadership of the organization reflects the diversity of the communities it serves, empowering people from all backgrounds to contribute meaningfully. By distributing authority, shared leadership breaks down the power dynamics that exclude marginalized voices, creating an organization that is more just and equitable internally—and better positioned to create systemic change externally.
-
Increased Agility and Innovation: Non-profits must be agile and adaptable to respond to the complex and rapidly evolving challenges they face. Shared leadership allows organizations to move away from slow, hierarchical decision-making processes and towards more collaborative, real-time problem-solving. When authority is distributed, teams can act swiftly and creatively, fostering a culture of innovation that enables the organization to stay ahead of challenges and seize opportunities.
-
Long-Term Sustainability and Impact: Shared leadership builds resilience. By developing leadership capacity at all levels of the organization, non-profits become less reliant on a single leader or small group of leaders. This not only reduces the risks associated with leadership transitions but also ensures that the organization remains sustainable over the long term. A shared leadership model creates a leadership pipeline, where emerging leaders are continually developed, ensuring that the organization is always equipped to meet the challenges of the future.
Conclusion:
I’ve seen the power of shared leadership firsthand. In my years working with non-profits and advocating for systemic change, I’ve witnessed organizations transform when they move away from hierarchical structures and embrace shared leadership. They become more inclusive, more innovative, and more aligned with their mission. They empower their staff, engage their communities, and, ultimately, have a greater impact on the world.
This is the future of non-profit leadership—one where diverse voices are elevated, authority is distributed, and leadership is shared. It’s not just about adopting a new model; it’s about living the values that are at the heart of your organization. When we align our leadership practices with our mission, we create organizations that are not only more effective but also more just, more resilient, and more capable of creating lasting change.
About The Purpose Playbook Series
Created by Dr. Virginia Lacayo, the co-founder of Massive Change, the creator of the Intersectional Leadership model, and a lifelong advocate for systemic change, The Purpose Playbook offers practical strategies to help non-profit leaders, board members, and donors ensure their organization’s long-term sustainability and impact. With her deep expertise in communication for social change, complexity science, and mindset coaching, and her practical experience as the President of one of the most impactful women’s funds in Latin America, Dr. Lacayo provides insights to navigate today’s complex landscape with confidence. Stay tuned for more insights tailored to your mission-driven work.
Responses