
Latest news, alerts, and events.
Latest news, alerts, and events.
Note: Most of Alaska’s nonprofit workplaces are fairly small. Only one-third of Alaska’s nonprofits have staff, and more than 85% of those with staff have fewer than 50 people. As you read this article, note that the trends we see in staff we also see in boards and volunteers. So, keep reading, and if your organization has no staff, the ideas will still hold, perhaps with slight adjustments to make the tools work for your unpaid team.
In the last six years, we have gone through The Great Resignation, The Great Reshuffle, a workforce shortage, and now what I might call The Big Decision. All these trends have taken place against a backdrop of shifting generations in the workforce, which amounts to more multigenerational employee groups operating together.
The Great Resignation and The Great Reshuffle were a result of workplace impacts from the pandemic including the loss of childcare, homeschooling, remote work requirements or return to office demands and more. The workforce shortage came with already low unemployment numbers resulting in a competitive marketplace for job seekers many of whom went outside the nonprofit sector and carefully chose workplaces based on pay, healthcare benefits, flexible hours, hybrid opportunities, and culture. Now, based on statistics from our statewide jobs board, national nonprofit trends, and a national and statewide environment of economic instability and political division, I am stepping out to call this period The Big Decision.
The “choice to have more choice” is the hallmark of The Big Decision. It’s the choice to center the locus of control in oneself and not wait for what will happen next for the organization. The characteristics of this moment are showing up at both ends of the decision spectrum. To stay is characterized by an intentional decision to commit, to persevere, to dig in, to make it better, to make it work, or to make it stronger. On the other end of the spectrum, it’s the choice to take a big intentional leap to something new where possibilities seem exciting, less stressful, or just different.
In my judgment, neither choice is good or bad, or right or wrong. However, it does seem like fewer employees are hesitating or unsure about which is the right choice for them, and they are unwilling to wait for the organization to figure it out. The need to stay or go is strong, overarching, and clear. Conversation after conversation points to clear-eyed intention. “I am leaving!” or “I am staying!” are declarative statements with very little wavering or uncertainty in their particular choice.
Making choices about work status is not new in any way. But it used to look different from what we see now. When we saw it at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, nonprofit leaders were quickly assessing if they had it in them to lead through so much uncertainty. Generationally, this group of leaders had already been through a lot, and many chose this moment to step out and do something else – many of them choosing consulting or another path to use their years of experience. But it was with more hesitation. At the same time, we watched leaders stay who had previously said they were leaving, again with hesitation but with a commitment to seeing their organizations through the uncertainty. In both cases, the clarity was less present. Still, also at these moments, we had more support for the sector as a whole. Then, sector leaders and staff were often seen as the people “on the front lines” serving communities in new ways. Organizations were adapting and learning as a whole, and the people inside were, too. We were the source of inspiration, celebration, and adaptation. And there was plenty of funding coming from a variety of sources, along with federal and state policies adapting to help us stay in the work. In many ways, The Great Reshuffle was the first big indication of workforce decisions moving toward employee needs and away from organizational strategies.
Those power shifts moved with us into a new era where organizations and the sector are threatened in new ways by partisan political rhetoric, antithetical grant requirements that clash with mission delivery and ethos, funding cuts, and policy shifts. All of this has left the sector in “protect and defend” mode or at least a “rethink business model” mode. Pile on the job cuts that happened as a result, and all these dynamics left an air of overall uncertainty in many workplaces. These cuts and reorganizations, too, have led us into The Big Decision where the people, not the organizations, are where clarity lives. This is where we are.
As nonprofit employers, how we respond matters. Our goal should always be tending to our workforce, never taking staff, board, and volunteers for granted or assume they will stay or go. Even as we battle with instability, we must focus on creating and sustaining a healthy work environment that fosters a positive team dynamic, competitive compensation (even if money is not how we can compete), and a transparent set of decisions that our Foraker team years ago coined as “the early and often” approach to staffing decisions. The latter means that if change is coming, give plenty of notice, have many conversations, and avoid surprises for everyone.
Importantly, since instability is driving this trend, it is not the time to either hide the facts or brush over the challenges with positivity. Jim Collins in Good to Great in the Social Sector reminds us to “confront the brutal facts.” My reframe is “to tell all the truth” with data and trends, not just with your heart and observation. This is hard for staff and harder for boards. At the same time, there is a difference in our sector between crisis and urgency. Crisis when turned inward is a sinking ship not worth saving, a mismanagement of people or funding, and a thing to often leave. Urgency, on the other hand, is the opportunity to be part of a solution, to reposition for success, to address the external factors, to come together. Understanding and communicating the difference is essential, not just to offer stability to the team but to keep investors engaged and strategies rolling forward.
A positive and healthy workplace culture is not a unicorn, and it is not a checkbox. It is a practice and a commitment by everyone on the team, not just those with leadership titles, to ensure it is working.
For those of you looking for ways to retain your team, you might consider one or all of these steps:
For those who are looking to recruit new team members, you might consider one or all these steps:
For those who are saying good-bye on positive terms (which is not always the case), these steps may help with a graceful exit. Or, if you are presented with a challenging exit, give us a call for HR support.
The era of employee-centric decision making still leaves room for employers to get it right and make a difference for people every day. Our goal should be the right people at the right time to move mission forward. As nonprofits, our missions are set up to be bigger than a single person. We need each other as people and organizations to make it all work. Focusing on how we recruit and retain and yes, sometimes, saying goodbye is part of our mission work. Some days it is harder than others but investing in people is always worth it.
-Laurie