Living with contrasts

The long-serving direc­tor of the Swiss Red Cross (SRC), Markus Mader, unex­pec­tedly had to step down at the end of 2022. A press release from the SRC cited diver­gent views on roles, duties and respon­si­bi­li­ties as the reason behind the Red Cross Council’s decis­ion to part ways with him. Seve­ral other members of the Coun­cil abruptly resi­gned in the wake of Mader’s dismis­sal. The dispute culmi­na­ted in the resi­gna­tion of the SRC’s presi­dent follo­wing the publi­ca­tion of an inves­ti­ga­tive report. Simi­lar protest resi­gna­ti­ons by board members also occur­red at Swiss Animal Protec­tion in the spring of this year, with seve­ral leaders leaving due to irre­con­cilable diffe­ren­ces regar­ding the future direc­tion of the orga­ni­sa­tion. Both dispu­tes attrac­ted considera­ble media atten­tion and undoub­tedly tarnis­hed the repu­ta­ti­ons of these two orga­ni­sa­ti­ons. But they weren’t the only nonpro­fit orga­ni­sa­ti­ons making nega­tive headlines.

Stra­tegy and management

The reports of these rifts suggest that NPOs might be parti­cu­larly suscep­ti­ble to leader­ship conflicts. The ques­tion is whether there is parti­cu­lar tension in chari­ta­ble orga­ni­sa­ti­ons between the stra­te­gic level – which is often unpaid – and the opera­tio­nal level. ‘Tension inher­ently exists when the opera­tio­nal level performs an execu­tive role and the stra­te­gic level a super­vi­sory role,’ explains Markus Gmür, Profes­sor and Direc­tor of Rese­arch at the Insti­tute for Rese­arch on Manage­ment of Asso­cia­ti­ons, Foun­da­ti­ons and Co-opera­ti­ves (VMI). ‘This tension is ampli­fied if the parties don’t just have diffe­rent roles but diffe­ring profes­sio­nal prio­ri­ties as well.’ Accor­ding to Gmür, this occurs when the manage­ment of a huma­ni­ta­rian orga­ni­sa­tion adhe­res to busi­ness prin­ci­ples while the board is stron­gly aligned with huma­ni­ta­rian ideals. It is normal for the manage­ment to assert that their exper­tise is essen­tial to running the orga­ni­sa­tion. A volun­t­ary board member, on the other hand, might see them­sel­ves as a guar­dian dedi­ca­ted to consis­t­ently and profes­sio­nally advan­cing the huma­ni­ta­rian mission defi­ned in the char­ter. This can lead to conflict. For instance, the manage­ment might be accu­sed of losing sight of the organisation’s purpose due to busi­ness conside­ra­ti­ons. Gmür states: ‘The orga­ni­sa­ti­ons are bridge-buil­ders and must ther­e­fore have rele­vant inter­di­sci­pli­nary skills and insights. Mana­ging these requi­res respect and clarity from all participants.’

Centra­li­sed vs decentralised

Multi-level nonpro­fit orga­ni­sa­ti­ons with fede­ral struc­tures, such as the Swiss Red Cross and Swiss Animal Protec­tion, are also confron­ted with constant tension between central and regio­nal enti­ties. This is evident during tran­si­ent phases of centra­li­sa­tion and decen­tra­li­sa­tion. Gmür says, ‘The turning point often coin­ci­des with overt gover­nance conflicts.’ He sees these tensi­ons as inher­ent in fede­ral struc­tures and recom­mends openly addres­sing the diffe­rent areas of tension at regu­lar inter­vals. In this way, escala­ti­ons can be nipped in the bud and the inevi­ta­ble see-sawing between centra­li­sed and decen­tra­li­sed enti­ties can be harnes­sed cons­truc­tively. He adds: ‘Fede­ral orga­ni­sa­tio­nal struc­tures place demands on manage­ment that are distinctly diffe­rent from those in the more rigid hier­ar­chies found in public admi­nis­tra­tion or commer­cial enterprises.’

Econo­mic inte­rests vs idea­li­stic concerns

In the nonpro­fit world, econo­mic inte­rests and idea­li­stic concerns often clash. Markus Gmür belie­ves there has been an incre­asing focus on busi­ness manage­ment perspec­ti­ves in recent years, and conse­quently a grea­ter respect for finan­cial cons­traints. This shift also breeds tension. ‘Some argue that NPOs should not turn a blind eye to econo­mic neces­si­ties and let idea­li­stic concerns get in the way of achie­ving goals, while others feel that idea­li­stic goals are being sacri­fi­ced by mana­ge­ria­lism and suppo­sed econo­mic reali­ties,’ says the expert. This shift towards a more commer­cial orien­ta­tion mirrors the norm in today’s broa­der society. But putting too much empha­sis on econo­mic goals might even impede the effec­ti­ve­ness of idea­li­stic measures.

The risk of stagnation

Today, colla­bo­ra­tive and parti­ci­pa­tory approa­ches are often touted as good solu­ti­ons for complex tasks in intri­cate orga­ni­sa­ti­ons. But do these new colla­bo­ra­tive methods always lead to the desi­red outcome? ‘Distin­gu­is­hing between opera­tio­nal and stra­te­gic roles still makes sense if we don’t want to over­whelm the people performing these roles,’ says Gmür. ‘It’s a bit like demo­cracy, which also thri­ves on the lively debate of oppo­sing views, ulti­m­ately resol­ved peacefully. That’s because seeking consen­sus too quickly could lead to stagna­tion.’ He also suggests that, in the NPO sector, there is alre­ady a more coope­ra­tive atti­tude that cultu­rally miti­ga­tes struc­tu­ral diffe­ren­ces. He gene­rally cauti­ons against forcing this mitigation.

Seeing through the eyes of others

‘For colla­bo­ra­tion to be effec­tive, parti­ci­pants must be clear on their roles. The more complex their joint task, the more important this beco­mes,’ empha­si­ses Gmür. Colla­bo­ra­tion often falters due to overly complex speci­fi­ca­ti­ons, or as a result of decis­ion-makers being over­whel­med or lack­ing cogni­tive skills, expe­ri­ence or a strong charac­ter. He belie­ves a key lesson can be found in the words of German philo­so­pher Hans-Georg Gada­mer (1900–2002): ‘Educa­tion means being able to see things from the perspec­tive of others.’