Wednesday, October 29, 2014

INFECTION

I was looking at the Board and Committee roster of one of our system's largest beneficiaries to locate the bio of one of its members when it suddenly struck me, the disease that afflicts our continental entity -- JFNA -- has now spread and metastasized in related entities. So I began to contemplate further...and here are some thoughts:

1. The Jewish Agency Board members from the United States, once appointed directly by United Israel Appeal, are now appointed by JFNA. In the face of real pressure from JFNA Chair Kathy Manning and predecessors, successive Chairs of UIA -- Jane Sherman, yours truly and Bruce Arbit -- UIA continued to assure that federation  leaders were named to the JA Board. But, today, at a time in which the JFNA Co-Chairs are extremely supportive of UIA, the U.S. appointed JAFI Board members now include a significant contingent from communities which significantly under-allocate (based on federation averages) to the JAFI core. Sure, there are those who espouse, against all evidence to the contrary, the view that being "in the room" with others from more "responsible" communities will inspire those which under-allocate to higher achievement. That has never happened. These leaders are, almost to a person, terrific and committed individuals -- they should be told that it is their responsibility to positively influence their communal allocations as one of their Board obligations. Should they fail or refuse, they should be thanked for their service.

But, there is more. Whereas the American Board members to JA of the past -- from Max Fisher, z'l, Marty Stein, z'l, Alex Grass, z'l,  to Marvin Lender to  Shoshana Cardin to Richie Pearlstone to Jane Sherman -- were among the great federation philanthropists of their eras or, in so many instances, the Board Chairs of their federations who continued on long after their terms were over, examine the JAFI Board membership roster of today. Where does their cumulative and individual influence reside? Look at the roster and decide for yourselves. Then ask: how and why did this happen. 

2. I called the Board Chair of one of our "system's" entities to question why two important leaders, one a past Chair, of that organization were not reappointed to the organization's Executive Committee. The response, after the suggestion that this was none of my business, was something like this: "No big deal. I abolished the Executive Committee." Think of it: a Board Chair, in this case a lawyer no less, believed he had the power to unilaterally "abolish the Executive Committee." This struck me as so crazy and so extreme that I was, at first, speechless -- then I came up with this brilliant response: "No, you can't." He said, "I did." And there we are. Perhaps this attitude of l'etat c'est moi is the result of  some leaders never being entrusted with the Chair seat of their own federation where they might have learned process; or the failure of an organization's professional leadership to just "say no" to the extremes insisted upon by a transient lay Chair. Or, perhaps, it's just stupidity. Anyway, the Executive Committee of that organization remains "abolished;" whatever that means.

3. At the beginning of his Term, the same subsidiary Board Chair had charged two of his best and brightest with the organization's CEO to chart a new, exciting and ambitious course for the organization -- one that would give it new scope, purpose and program. The JFNA Co-Chairs bought in and all seemed to be in place. Then this organization's Chair just dropped it; absolutely walked away without looking back. Did personal ambition trump organizational priorities...again? Or was it a function, one that seems to occur within the ambit of our organizations far too often, of another organization whose chief volunteer officer never experienced a federation chairmanship?  Or did someone whisper in CEO Jerry's ear that these new powers and programs would be bad for, e.g., the continuing futility of JFNA-Israel and/or the GPT?

4. Then there is this...The leaders of the continental organization -- and, in particular, its CEO -- believe that those who serve on JFNA Board, Committees and as officers no longer represent their federations but, instead, are somehow empowered by JFNA and JFNA alone. Sure, the federations place their leaders on the JFNA Board, the federations educate and support them but a CEO with no comprehension of the federation ethos -- after five years, he still doesn't get it -- just rejects it. And federation CEOs just take it. Maybe, at the end of the day, there is no federation ethos any more.

Oh, yes, it's a mess.

Rwexler

10 comments:

  1. Does anyone within these organizations ever push back, or do they just bend over knuckles scraping the ground as they appear to? These are ur organizations today composed of the spineless and, yet, ambitious. These are men and women who want power but seem not to know what to do with it once they have it or they are the LCE who have the power and think they know what to do with it but don't.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If we know this cast of characters, as we do, there should no surprises here. We have organizations whose leaders have lost their way, don't understand how to lead, and the results are in. These are now organizations totally alienated from their constituencies.. This has caused disengagement by those who could lead us into the future; and those men and women just won;t be around because of the present lay and professional leadership

    ReplyDelete
  3. Richard I believe that you are well intentioned (mostly) as is some (not all) of your anonymous responders but you need to stop using LCE as a blanket term. There are 19 large city Execs and only a small handful with any real system clout. You also have a small number of lay leaders who act on their own without knowledge or consideration of the impact of their decisions or non-decisions. When you make blanket indictments you hurt those who want change but cannot effect change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Anonymous,

    Point taken. I will try to be more careful because you are right.

    Thanks,

    ReplyDelete
  5. While the 3rd anonymous is correct (I assume he/she is a member of the group and not one of those "with clout". It's a shame that none of those not part of the handful don't take some of their own action along with their community. Or maybe they are and not being vocal about it. I can think of several things they could do even without clout. One example - Let JFNA know that their community is reducing dues until ABC happens. If A happens they will increase a portion of the withheld dues. If B also happens an additional portion and so forth. I'm sure that the creative minds of the remaining 15-16 people can come up with other things they can do besides sit by passively and do nothing. Or if they are doing something they should be more vocal about it. They have more power than they think. They are only beholden to their local community. Do they really think their local community will remove them from their positions if they take a meaningful stand on JFNA contrary to the views of the few with clout?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't agree with your suggestion that one must have Chaired a federation in order to understand how to lead a national organization. You have merely unearthed a set of men and women who by personality and psychology lack the personality and understanding of what leadership means and how to execute in a manner appropriate to their responsibilities. When you then combine those faults with professional partners who aren't able to lead these lay leaders in proper direction, there is the failure on all fronts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Richie, Ever think that the problem is you? You helped lead the merger to fruition, you chaired all of these organizations and look where we are -- up sh't's creek without a paddle of any kind. Maybe if you had done a better job, we wouldn't be where we are?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sounds as if there are some lay leaders out there who aren't ready for the big time, so filled with hubris and their own self-importance that they have lost sight of the organization's goals, confusing them with their own ambition. These are just the kind of leaders NO organization needs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You forgot to mention that this same Chair is organizing a "50 person" set of "Chaverim" to advocate for JAFI with the federations,or maybe it's to advocate for this Chair. In any event, this good idea, will only be as good as the messengers are powerful; they aren't. This, too, will be an expensive flop...but a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps the 8th anonymous should volunteer to help make that "good idea" a working success?

    ReplyDelete