In the halcyon days of yore. continental leadership arose from a group of leaders who had demonstrated an almost lifelong commitment of time, energy and, yes, dollars, to the organization. Some -- and I included myself among the fortunate -- mentored, fed into roles where we could exercise our leadership in demonstrable ways. At the incredible United Jewish Appeal, z'l, the men and women, lay and professional, felt a bond, a camaraderie, growing out of a sense of mission, movement and real commitment. Those of us who demonstrated the mentality of team players moved on from Young Leadership Cabinets to Campaign Cabinet, from Women's Campaign to International Lion of Judah. For the best of these leaders, their roles were not about "what's next for me," but, rether, "what's next for the Jewish People." We were about finding leadership roles for the "next," not, "what's next for me?" And, to a point, UJA thrived.
JFNA has been fortunate -- at times over the 2+ decades, a Mark Wilf, incredible philanthropist, great leader. passionate Zionist, from a great Federation emerges to take on leadership. In today's world Mark is a rare leader of grace, leading by example.
In today's world, we observe, at least at JFNA, an oligarchy in its truest form -- a small group of people controlling the organization periodically "allowing" one or two new faces to enter while no one leaves -- practically ever. The seminal criterion for leadership today: who do you know?
Then we observe a transparent public sycophancy that appears to be a requirement for moving up the leadership food chain. To paraphrase the directive for a brilliant Rodeo Drive shopping spree in Pretty Woman: "You're in the right organization, in the right City for the maximum amount of sucking up.' Yes, indeed.
So, leaders, good people all, recirculate through from position to position, careful not to offend, apparently never pausing to contemplate that new faces might do the job as well, or, perish the thought, better. Does anyone really believe, other than he/she holding the title, that someone other than ______ ___________ might do a worse job than he who currently serves -- in any capacity? Or that _____ _______ is the only person who could possibly serve as Chair of X? As some sport once screamed: "You've got to be kidding me."
So, you ask, what's the point? Yeah, what's the point in expanding the numbers of those in leadership? Well, for one, it broadens the base; more leaders equal more debate, and ultimately, a braoder consensus. Oligarchy's don't last -- except, apparently, in Jewish communal life.
More's the pity.
Rwexler
Posts
1 comment:
While I have no scientific data I do have observational data over about 40 years of involvement in the federation world. It appears to me that some of the same comments can be applied to dozens of the local federations. Doesn't this emphasis on re-cycling of leadership, not promoting from within, staying insular explain a good part of the reason that individual donors have declined by at least 2/3rds in the past 20+ years? Doesn't it also explain to some degree the reason that individual federations look outward for professional leadership rather than to cultivate upcoming professionals? Exactly what is the relationship today to YLC and the board of directors/board of trustees of JFNA? How are the local cabinet members being engaged in their local communities to assume leadership roles? Or are they? And what about the role of the GA? It seems to me that the LOJ biennial conference now plays a much greater role in developing leadership than the GA.
Post a Comment