We won't learn the answer from Josh's cryptic note to his friends at JAFI and beyond:
"It’s been a pleasure, but it’s time for me to move on to the next chapter. I have enormous respect for each of you and I know that you will continue to do wonderful work at the Agency on behalf of the Jewish world...I will likely be pumping gas in New Jersey if you are passing through."His departure on to the "next chapter" was precipitous...literally days after the decision was communicated. Judy Maltz, doing her usual superb reporting in Haaretz, Top Jewish Agency Executive Outside Israel Quits, suggested that Fogelson traveled to Jerusalem to surprise JAFI higher-ups of his decision to move on. Equally, if not more likely, he was summoned to Jerusalem to explain why The Jewish Agency International Development ("JAID") was producing lesser results than those in Jerusalem anticipated given its overhead and let go, forced out, whatever one wishes to call it. We, no doubt, will never know.
One thing we do know -- after less than 3 years Josh Fogelson is no longer JAID"s professional leader and JAFI's financial resource development must be in disarray and needs a reexamination. Yet, the only "reexamination" that appears to be on-going is Alan Hoffmann, the Jewish Agency Director General who has only months to go as CEO, is determined to assert JAFI Jerusalem's hegemony over JAID. And, to assert his authority, even as the lamest of lame ducks, Alan was in New York two weeks ago, between Rosh Ha'Shana and Yom Kippur, interviewing Search firms to identify a new JAID CEO acceptable to...him? (If this "process" makes sense to anyone, or if you believe Hoffmann should be leading it, please explain.)
One other thing we do know, as I was recently reminded:
"The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself."As one of my own chevre, close to the situation, advised, to paraphrase: "The Israelis just expect money to rain down on JAFI" as a matter of entitlement. They don't understand the need to invest in fundraising as do, e.g., JDC, JNF-USA, WorldORT and federations -- especially if they cannot totally control the effort.
So, Fogelson met the same fate as his predecessors -- David Sarnat, Maxyne Finkelstein, Misha Galperin -- each of them a superb professional, each totally dedicated to their engagement and to JAFI. Yet, in each of those prior circumstances, one could point to the lay and professional leaders who decided the professionals' fate -- Sharansky and/or Alan Hoffmann, then the JAFI Chair of the Executive and Director General, respectively. But Natan is gone and Hoffmann tendered his retirement notice last March, and Bougie Herzog is still too new to his Chairmanship. So, Hoffmann...
In this void, who is making decisions at JAFI on FRD matters? On the investment necessary to create a return? Who is part of the cabal that decided that after less than three years Josh Fogelson's success or failure could be measured? Fogelson did spend a significant amount of time restocking the JAID staff, then drafting a fundraising plan. He rejected suggestions as to how to reinvigorate outreach to the federations directly because he knew better. Yet, as his third year of FRD leadership was coming to a close, the fruits of his efforts appeared to be on the cusp of some degree of success. And, he is gone and there are a lot of resumes of good people now in circulation.
There is a pattern here. I remember as if it were yesterday being in Jerusalem with Misha Galperin literally on the eve of the execution of his JAID CEO contract as certain JAFI leaders (OK, it was Hoffmann), somehow already dissatisfied with the deal that JAFI had made, started demanding changes to Misha's contract that would have brought him under the very thumbs of those in Jerusalem who would turn out to be obstacles to JAFI's FRD success (OK, it was Hoffmann).
When, after years of substantial financial results, Misha decided he'd had enough, JAFI determined to bring the FRD marketing function back to Jerusalem and under the control of the bureaucrats there. As we observed at the time of Fogelson's hiring:
"Anyone who has led an FRD effort understands that marketing and FRD require coordination and direction, by FRD for FRD -- that will not be the case at JAID/JAFI."Now, it appears that JAFI wants to coopt its own financial resource development by relocating the FRD effort to Jerusalem, as well -- a locus that has never produced signicant dollars for the Agency. So, whatever fundraising progress was made since we established JAFI North America and, then, JAID, Jerusalem will surely reverse it.
JAID can still succeed. But only if it is allowed to.
#SAD.
Rwexler
Even on his way out, it's all about power - Alan's power. And not incidentally that Israelis in power believe they are "experts" in Diaspora relations and have all the answers. If Herzog has that attitude, count on the continued irrelevance of the Agency in North America.
ReplyDeleteIf the best that Herzog can do is to rely on Hoffmann and Jerry Silverman for advice, JAFI will be out of business before Bougie decides to return to politics. Herzog needs to seek out new faces and new voices -- start with Eric Goldstein and Jay Sanderson, as two examples. JAFI is in deep trouble.
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder why Alan Hoffmann would be interviewing for a new CEO of JAID when another will be filling HOffmann's role in what should be weeks. And are there any lay leaders at JAID; what's their involvement? What role to they play? I thought there was a Chair of JAID as you were once Chair of JAFI North America? Is that person just a tool of Hoffmann's? This is a disaster, mainly for the Jewish Agency.
ReplyDeleteI am not certain of the personal and/or professional reasons for Joshua Fogelson's departure as CEO of JAID.. However, as a Jewish communal professional who had the privilege of working with him at the Agency I can speak directly about the work environment and his leadership. On the former, very challenging. Working for an Israeli based non-profit is very different and more difficult than U.S. based organizations, the limitations imposed by the governance model, our U.S. based partners, as well as the inter-departmental battles and competition created anxiety, confusion, mixed messages and ultimately less than optimally effective fundraising. Even within this unusual, to put it mildly, model, Joshua was a strong, focused and principled professional leader. He had high expectations but didn't demand more of us than he did of himself. He did his best to shield his Israeli and American staff from the unhealthier aspects of the organization's culture. And, despite the pressures he faced, he consistently defended the Agency, spoke passionately about its mission and pushed as much as possible to advance all areas of financial resource development. Given his his sudden departure as well as the experiences of his immediate predecessors, I imagine JAID may be hard pressed to find another top flight pro willing to risk taking on such a position.
ReplyDeleteSarnat, Finkelstein, Galperin and now Fogelson. Terrific professionals who were put through the Jewish Agency wringer, not allowed to do thejob for which they were hired by leaders in Jerusalem and then blamed for their perceived lack of performance. Sadly, the Diaspora Jwwish leaders of JAFI and in particular those from the United States have failed these professionals as much as Hoffmann did.
ReplyDelete