Leadership & Change in the Land of The Lost

The agenda for leadership transition in the Jewish community simply cannot be created and dictated entirely by the existing and departing leadership.

by Dr. Yehuda Kurtzer

Readers of eJewish Philanthropy will readily recognize the phrase “leadership crisis” as a recurrent feature of conversation – or perhaps we should say, panic – in Jewish organizational life. The impending, and in some cases already occurring, demise of the stranglehold on executive leadership by the existing pool of longstanding executives in major (or “mainstream”) Jewish organizations is cause for great consternation and concern and has resulted in a steady stream of editorials, op-eds, and now most recently, a comprehensive analysis of the problem written by Barry Rosenberg and commissioned by JPPI.

Sadly, but consistent with the tenor of this conversation as it has been conducted in public thus far, this new report names but does little to address the core issues at play when it comes to leadership succession; and more perversely, the report actually embodies the deeply troubling attitudes that are responsible for this problem. The study assumes the continued centrality of the same organizations struggling to create leadership succession; proposes to increase efforts to centralize the processes of leadership cultivation and development in the face of growing decentralization; and ultimately seeks to reiterate and replicate the same modes of leadership that have led Jewish organizational life to this crossroads.

Here is what we know: “Mainstream” Jewish organizations are suffering from a much larger problem than leadership succession. Having nobly served the Jewish people throughout the 20th century, they are being squeezed by a general skepticism from the Jewish general public about their continued relevance, especially in the face of a thriving innovation sector that is creative and nimble, and more importantly in light of the changing trends of Jewish affiliation that are relocating Jewish identity outside of these normative frameworks. As successful as these organizations have been for the last half-century at organizing and convening Jewish life – and I say this as a Federation donor and a believer in the value of centralized community – the trends in Jewish life and affiliation are not on the side of the infrastructure-heavy Jewish institutions.

Moreover, these institutions have often been led by CEOs for 20 or even 30 years, CEOs whose values were developed by and for a different generation of Jewish history. They now leave the stage of leadership with our gratitude, and hopefully with the recognition of the meaningful legacy they may claim as their own. But while they deserve credit and our thanks for keeping their organizations going in the face of these major existential changes in the Jewish community, we must also acknowledge that those same long years spent in saving, preserving and salvaging their institutions have also been directly responsible for the prevailing panic about leadership succession that now defines this conversation. Put differently, who is to blame for a bad pipeline: those not entering it, or those who were responsible for building and maintaining it?

For major institutions to continue serving the Jewish people, carrying on their essential functions such as preserving the safety net against poverty, supporting Jewish education, and helping to constitute community against the trends towards fragmentation, they need help: they need creativity, new voices, serious investment in leadership education that goes beyond ad hoc solutions, and radically new frameworks with which to think about their own identities and those of the populations they serve. And to do this work, the agenda for leadership transition in the Jewish community simply cannot be created and dictated entirely by the existing and departing leadership. This plainly obvious fact has blinded many Jewish organizations for way too long. A vision for organizational sustainability and continued relevance cannot be defined by the premise of self-replacement or worse, self-replication. The most damning recommendation in the report is the first proposed short-term solution, which is to “delay” the leadership succession problem by continuing to retain the current crop of aging CEOs, a devastatingly self-interested solution that is only limited, in the view of the report, by the significant costs this will necessarily incur to keep these people in their jobs.

Something has to change in this conversation, and I want to propose that it is not going to happen through non-scientific studies, nor through attempts in writing or in elite gatherings of the soon-to-be-retiring executive leaders trying to find younger versions of themselves. The Jewish community is not going to be “saved” – nor its fading institutions salvaged – through quick-fix Israel trips for leaders (what Rosenberg calls “booster shots”) or even through elaborately conceived leadership development centers. Jewish life, in and out of our organizations, needs to driven by vision and values, by making our institutions the kind of inspiring places where visionaries want to work, and by making space for them to become places very different than they currently are.

This must include allowing organizations that have outlived their necessity to fail, well before budget crises make this inevitable. This vision must include relocating the center of gravity in Jewish life from the big institutions – where they hold sway by reason of history, not necessarily merit – to sites of true creativity, energy and vibrant leadership. It should include the awareness that many great (not “future”) young Jewish leaders already exist is in the system but are reluctant to enter into a system that repels meaningful change. It will require taking risks on new voices, leadership styles, and the kinds of people who have been stuck for too long with only the option of the infantilized “young leadership” track instead of opportunities for real influence. And it means radically diversifying the picture of what leadership actually looks like, and cultivating a vision of talent that focuses on inspirational capability rather than adherence to an antiquated style and skill-set.

The conversation on the future of institutional Jewish life has already started. Thank goodness! Change has been the only constant in Jewish history, and it is only the hubris of recent Jewish leadership that has insisted that “continuity” – the anxiety that those who follow you replicate your choices – that has resisted, rather than trying to adapt to, the rolling tide of change. Several major legacy organizations are already in the midst of searches for their next leadership, and the propagation of pieces like JPPI’s will only serve to magnify this process and make it even more public. This is a significant pragmatic and ethical opportunity. Let’s hope this sunlight brings meaningful light and change into the institutional Jewish community – both for its own survival, and more importantly for the broader Jewish people who it purports to represent.

Dr. Yehuda Kurtzer is the President of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America.

Print Friendly
Send to Kindle

Comments

  1. Exceedingly well-said! We tend to confuse organizational crises with leadership crises. We think “only if we had the right leader everything would be all right.” Well there are plenty of talented leaders already working within the Jewish community running small organizations or managing larger ones (though not the Presidenr of CEO). They may not be in the image of our current organizational leaders, but maybe that is what is needed for this new age.

  2. Barry Rosenberg says:

    It is regrettable that the tone of Dr. Kurtzer’s article casts the report as a defense of establishment ways; when I largely concurred with his summary of the changes taking place in Jewish life, the need for organizational change, including sun-setting organizations, and the need for organizations built on vision and values that speak to the evolving Jewish population. My articulation of the qualities needed in the next CEOs defines the knowledge, skills and values necessary to lead such organizations.

    However, whereas Dr. Kurtzer calls for radical change; I conclude that the forces at play will result in a transitional period and recommend strategies to move through that difficult transition. Indeed, the report states, “Given these factors and growing debate about the needs and best structure of the Jewish community, the next CEOs will have to straddle a difficult line. They will need to understand and master the existing context, while simultaneously responding to, envisioning and leading institutional change. There will be many obstacles. The need for change is not universally accepted. The issues are complex and solutions to communal ailments are not readily apparent. Volunteers, donors, and staff will cling to old ways, defend power and resource allocations. Executive power is limited by volunteer governance. Day to day pressures will crowd out time and resources for working on change, which is usually slow and process heavy.”

    In no way do my recommendations call for a centralized decision-making or leadership development process. I advocated a specific “collective action” strategy which emphasizes the voluntary participation of institutions, across the organizational spectrum, dedicating themselves to identifying, cultivating and training the leaders who can respond to the realities of today and instituting the types of human resource policies and practices that will attract the next generation of professional leaders, specifically including those within the innovation sector.

    Nor did I advocate retaining the existing crop of baby boomer CEO’s. I merely identified this as one of several possible ways of addressing the short term reality where many search committees struggle desperately to find a qualified pool of candidates. And in doing so, I clearly outlined the risks, beyond financial.

    Dr. Kurtzer’s article highlights one of the many important debates facing the North American Jewish community as we look to sustain, revitalize and re-imagine Jewish life. However, his selective reading and tone (e.g. “stranglehold on executive leadership”) promotes conflict that will not move us to concerted action. The report is unequivocal that the organized Jewish community has long been negligent in addressing its professional leadership needs. I hope it report will catalyze meaningful action and I encourage its careful review and discussion.

  3. Mark Charendoff says:

    Terrific analysis and an honest assessment of the real challenges facing our community. We need to constantly remember who our constituency really are, the entirety of the Jewish people and not only those who are occupying our Board rooms. Kol Hakavod

  4. This is such an important discussion and one that needs to bring in an array of voices. We began this conversation 2 years ago in the January 2011 issue of Sh’ma http://www.shmadigital.com/shma/201101#pg1
    and we might further it in another issue this coming year –

  5. Stunning. Absolutely and fully and totally stunning. I hope every person working within the current system reads this. Kol hakavod to you, Dr. Kurtzer.

  6. I completely agree with the initial posts that Dr. Kurtzer’s post was well-written and important to this continuing conversation. Interestingly enough, these issues have been extensively addressed in Rabbi Sid Schwarz’s new book Jewish Megatrends. In the book, which I recently read, Schwarz offers a “vision for a community that can simultaneously strengthen the institutions that serve those who seek greater Jewish identification and attract younger Jews, many of whom are currently outside the orbit of Jewish communal life.” For those interested in these issues, it is worth a read. http://www.jewishlights.com/page/product/978-1-58023-667-6

  7. Andy Shapiro Katz says:

    Could it be that the ecosystem of leaner more innovative Gen-X led organizations presupposes the existence of the large legacy organizations? I mean, do the Gen-X organizations really address the same issues? Do they even want to? Jewish poverty? Jewish education for all (not just super-creative and cool Jewish education for the elite)? Fighting anti-Semitism? Holocaust education? Aid to Israel? These things may not be as important now as they were (it does seem difficult to separate what is truly important from what actually engages people), thereby making the legacy organizations less relevant, but surely they are still important. If the legacy organizations vanished instantly, would there be Gen-Xers who would step up to create organizations – smaller, leaner, and more innovative ones – to do their work? I don’t think so. I think many of us are happy to pursue our cutting edge niche-oriented projects or community organizers, scholars-in-residence, artists, software developers, etc., secure that our parents’ generation is doing the more boring and cliched “Jewish communal service.” It isn’t so different from how our parents’ generation, and the great wealth they produced, made it possible for us do internships, travel, study what we wanted, experiment, and whatnot, all the while knowing that there was a house in the suburbs we could move back to if we ever fell on our faces.

More in The American Jewish Scene, The Blog
no name
The Name Game, Jewish Institutional-Style

by Julie Wiener When the Jewish Education Service of North America» (JESNA) announced last week that it would end operations...

Close