Exploring the Future pt. 1 - Trends
Earlier this year, ago a friend shared an article that really challenged me. The gist is this: “the greatest leaders play the long game.” For me, the main idea was captured in this quote:
“If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people because very few companies are willing to do that. Just by lengthening the time horizon, you can engage in endeavors that you could never otherwise pursue.” ― Jeff Bezos
I often help my clients develop a Learning Agenda and then find ways to gain more confidence in questions that are crucial to their organization’s success. Yet, I’ve never formally done this for my own business. So I decided to launch a learning project this summer, exploring the question “What will the future of the nonprofit sector, impact evaluation, and consulting look like in 2027?”
To tackle this broad question, I took two approaches. First, I asked my talented former colleague Andrea Cameron to help me find the very best writing on the internet exploring this. I ended up reading over 20 articles from high-quality sources ranging from the Stanford Social Innovation Review and MIT Sloan Review to white papers from the major strategy consulting firms and thought leadership from the Council of Nonprofits and Inside Philanthropy.
Next, I reached out to some of the colleagues, friends, and mentors that I knew think often about questions like these. Overall, I interviewed eleven of my favorite people:
Judy Lyon, Ph.D. — Founding partner of CedarCrestone (retired) and author
Barrett Johnson — Managing Partner, Salos Services
Cassandra O’Neill — CEO, Leadership Alchemy
Christina Gotfredson — Former Impact Manager, Gary Community Investments
Ivellisse Morales — CEO, Bombilla Creative
Will Russell — Founder, Russell Marketing
Julia Coffman — Director, The Center for Evaluation Innovation
Eric Barela — Director, Measurement & Evaluation at Salesforce
Monisha Kapila — Founder & CEO, ProInspire
Akila Copeland — Program Officer, Caring for Denver Foundation
Sam Levine — Principal, Social Leadership Solutions
Banks Benitez — CEO, Uncharted
Finally, many of my interviewees suggested additional resources and organizations I should check out. I’m still in the process of sifting through these suggestions, but I want to share what I’ve learned so far.
My research unearthed a number of trends and examples of organizations taking risks to make a better future our shared reality. This will be the first post in a series. Today, I am sharing a list of the trends that came up from my research time and again, and some of the best sources that you can read for yourself. In my second post, I’ll walk through some of the implications of these trends that I see for changemakers and leaders of organizations. In my third post, I’ll highlight some organizations I’ve learned about that are either poised to take advantage of these trends, or are making major shifts so they can be ready for the future. And in my fourth post, I’ll talk more about what I think these trends mean for Coeffect and for me personally.
Before I dive in, I want to be honest about my limitations. First, the classic investor’s warning: trends observed from events in the past may reverse themselves in the future. Second, you’ll notice that this list is focused on the United States, and some of these may be less relevant for those in other countries. Third, even predicting what will happen next month is almost impossible in a global pandemic. To the extent I can, I’ve focused on trends that precede COVID, but have continued and in many cases have accelerated. With these limitations in mind, I believe anybody who is leading an organization has a responsibility to make decisions with the future in mind, especially if we’re going to use this moment to become a more resilient, effective, and just society.
Mega-Trends
Photo Credit: My friend David Kennedy
Let’s start with some trends that affect all of us, personally and professionally. While most of my research focused on trends impacting the future of work and the social sector, not acknowledging these macro trends would be a major omission. These are the backdrop for many of the other trends listed further on.
Climate Change: Wired and every credible piece online about future trends acknowledge that climate change is real and will have significant impacts in the next 7 years and far beyond. What I found interesting is that I heard rather little about climate change during my interviews. Perhaps this is because my mentors are nonprofit leaders and consultants, and are less impacted by climate change than those in other industries. Even so, the relative lack of attention I observed leaves me rather pessimistic about the future of our climate.
Demographic Change: The MIT Sloan Review notes that in many countries (the US included) the population is aging which will put ever-increasing pressures on pension funds and retirement benefits like Social Security. We also know that the United States is becoming more racially diverse (see here for an insightful piece from the Pew Research Center on changing demographics in the US Military). The imperative is on organization leaders to find and retain people of color that can eventually become the next round of leaders. This is especially important for social sector organizations that need to be trusted in diverse communities. As one of my mentors shared, “We need to make the right hires now to remain relevant in 5 or 10 years.”
Artificial Intelligence & Automation: Forbes and many other sources note that AI and other technologies will continue automating workers out of jobs. I’ve always been skeptical of the extent to which jobs can be automated, but I’m not sure that anybody can feel completely safe here. For example, I recently learned of a new category of AI-powered data visualization tools like Thoughtspot that can complement, or in some cases replace, visual information designers and business analysts.
Pushing Back on Tech: In the 2020 presidential primary we saw several candidates talking about the importance of personal data ownership and limiting the power of big technology companies. Several writers, including Science Focus, note that data privacy will become an ever-greater concern. And some of my mentors are already thinking about how they might reduce their reliance on Facebook and Google for digital advertising, in anticipation that these organizations will experience a breakup or a decrease in power in the years ahead.
Pushing Back on Wealth: Socioeconomic inequality has been growing for years in our country. Inside Philanthropy notes that this has resulted in a greater percentage of overall charitable giving becoming more concentrated among a small class of “mega-givers.” A pushback on wealth and its manifestations in philanthropy have been well documented in several popular books including Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas, Decolonizing Wealth by Edgar Villanueva, and Just Giving by Rob Reich.
Pressure on Racial Equity: It is widely known that most important life outcomes in our country are not proportionally distributed along racial and ethnic lines. In short, folks who look like me (a white male) have a far higher share of wealth, income, health, education, and opportunity than we should if these positive life events were equally distributed across race and ethnicity. What makes me optimistic, however, is the increased social pressure to do something about these inequities. History has shown that we are quick to forget about the importance of racial equity, but my hope is that this increased pressure will still be a trend 7 years from now. Based on the number of organizations that have committed publicly to action in this area (Bridgespan is a great example in my field), I’m cautiously optimistic.
Government Gridlock: Our state of increased political polarization has been documented by Gallup, the Pew Research Center, and others. While this trend is timely and may reverse over the long-term, my guess is that partisanship will continue to threaten the effectiveness of our state and national government even seven years from now. Assuming that the Coronavirus is brought under control, there will be significant fallout from the pandemic: conservatives will continue pushing back on government overreach, while liberals will criticize the government’s historic role in perpetuating racism through stewardship of our criminal justice, education, housing systems which have left communities of color more vulnerable. Further, as our population ages and government debts continue to grow, more tax revenue will be tied up in servicing debt and public employee pensions. In short, I think it will be hard for the government, regardless of the controlling party, to take drastic action on some of the other trends listed here. The onus will be on businesses and nonprofits to tackle our big issues.
Future of Work
I am particularly interested in trends impacting the future of work. For the trends below, I drew from both the research and my interviews so I feel pretty confident about these.
Freelance Revolution: As Forbes noted, “Today, more than 40 per cent of employees are now considered non-permanent workers, with the figure expected to rise as people start to fully embrace more remote, distributed and gig work.” We’re in the midst of a shift towards many more workers operating as freelancers as opposed to full-time employees. While there are major pros and cons to this, McKinsey notes this may be great for smaller organizations and startups. Organizations like these will have better access to talented team members that in the past. My experience is that it also can work well for young parents, and women in particular, who want to work but need additional schedule flexibility to accommodate taking care of their families (especially considering the high cost of full-day childcare).
Diversifying Workplaces and the Racial Leadership Gap: A diversifying population should result in workplaces becoming more diverse. As ProInspire notes, the reality is that many organizations are facing a leadership gap where managers aren’t as diverse as their organization’s individual contributors. This often results in the organization having trouble addressing issues of race, and with issues retaining staff who are people of color. Several mentors noted that Equity in the Center is publishing some of the most comprehensive research on how organizations can build a race equity culture, and I recommend reading their resources to learn more.
Flattening Organization Structures: Fast Company and others note that organizations are becoming less hierarchical, are providing greater autonomy to individual workers. Multiple mentors shared how their organizations were becoming flatter. Sharing power (instead of hoarding power at the top of the hierarchy) is also an important piece to creating a race equity culture, noted in the last bullet point.
Remote Work: The Coronavirus pandemic has forced many, though not all, to work remotely. The Harvard Business Review anticipates that this is a change that will stick around, with 20–30% of all workers working from home a significant amount of time after the pandemic concludes. As with some of these other trends, pros and cons exist. The Economist recently did a nice job outlining some of the potential positives of more employees working from home. For example, this change could open up professional opportunities to individuals who for personal or family reasons must live in rural communities. In addition, office space no longer needed in urban areas could be converted to meet demands in affordable housing.
Credentialing: McKinsey and others note that traditional education, which has historically come before embarking on a career, is giving way to a norm of lifelong learning with more specific credentials. My wife’s employer, Thinkful, is an example of one of many organizations offering this kind of learning. There’s an important equity implication here as well — some students of color don’t get the educational opportunities that put them on a path to earn a degree from a prestigious university, or cannot imagine how they might pay for higher education. De-emphasizing the “brand” of the college or university, and placing more emphasis on learning throughout one’s career can open up important opportunities.
Future of the Social Sector
Finally, I was looking for trends that impact the future of the social sector — my shorthand for nonprofit organizations, social enterprises, and purpose-driven businesses that are working to achieve beneficial social and environmental changes. Most of these trends were identified in my interviews and I’m supporting several of them with examples from my clients.
Moving from a Charity to a Justice Mindset: Many organizations are realizing that serving an individual in a time of need is not sufficient to solve a persistent social problem. While it is important to provide for the immediate needs of a person in crisis, it is also important that organizations work to change the playing field so that it is less likely people will enter into crisis. In other words, many organizations believe they must pursue social justice — a fair distribution of wealth, power, rights, and opportunity — in order to accomplish their missions. ProInspire has written at length about how leaders can push their organizations to make this shift.
Working on Root Causes: Along this same line, more organizations are identifying root causes of the challenges they are seeking to solve, and are expanding their approach to more directly address these root causes. My client Safe & Sound is a good example of an organization that added new staff positions to raise awareness of the root causes of child maltreatment, in addition to responding in situations where abuse occurs. The Council of Nonprofits also emphasizes the importance of giving nonprofits greater flexibility to advocate for issues and promote engagement in democracy, as many times historic policies or government funding flows contribute to these root causes.
The Triple Bottom Line: One of my mentors mentioned that the importance of the Triple Bottom Line (pursuing environmental, social, and financial results at the same time) seems to finally be sinking in with large companies. This trend towards more socially and environmentally conscious brands is one I’ve been following for years, and is corroborated by several of the other sources including this whitepaper by PwC. What I find encouraging is that there is growing pressure on organizations to pursue the social and environmental bottom lines. Above the Bottom Line is one newsletter I subscribe to that exemplifies this kind of pressure. Nikita, the author, does a great job highlighting areas where companies are failing to live up to their expressed social impact values.
Accountability in Philanthropy: Several of my mentors who are familiar with philanthropy mentioned a trend towards greater community engagement in defining grantmaking priorities. One mentor took this a step further — how can philanthropists be made accountable to the communities they serve? Elected officials and the institutions they oversee are made accountable to the needs of their communities through having to win re-election. While foundations aren’t democracies, I do see a trend towards new models of community accountability. The Caring for Denver Foundation, which distributes funds collected through a city tax to support mental health and address substance misuse has an interesting approach. They have committed to a public input process on their strategy every 3 years, and the City of Denver may re-issue an RFP for the funding services they oversee every 5 years.
Organizations > Programs: One of the aspects of my profession I’ve found most challenging is our emphasis on “programs” — discrete and contained approaches to solving a problem for a specific set of people. Most nonprofits have many such “programs”. These are often interdependent — the same staff people typically deliver multiple programs, and the same clients participate in many programs. While impact investors typically fund an organization as a whole, grantmakers often restrict funding to one or a limited set of programs within an organization. The Trust Based Philanthropy initiative suggests a number of reforms to philanthropic practice, including giving multi-year, unrestricted funding allowing nonprofits to use those funds however they see fit. My sincere hope is that this will gain momentum as more grantmakers realize their well-intentioned funding practices are actually getting in the way of solving problems.
As I mentioned, my hope here was to name the trends that came up over and over again in my research. In my next post, I’ll walk through some of the implications of these trends that I see for changemakers and leaders of organizations like the nonprofits I often work with. Until then — if you have an opinion on any of these trends I’d like to hear from you! Send me an email at paul@coeffect.co.